Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Falkland Islands (Transit Passengers)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the Government of Argentina objecting to the information demanded in advance of transit passengers to the Falkland Islands at Buenos Aires; and whether citizens in transit face similar difficulties anywhere else in the world.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the requirement that passengers booking flights to the Falkland Islands should provide details of their passports. This requirement is not restricted to passengers travelling to the islands; it also applies to foreign passengers on internal flights within Argentina. Such requirements for transit passengers are not unique.

Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that the Falkland Islands Company Ltd. has told me that it cannot make any bookings on LADE in less than six weeks? Is the Minister further aware that the details that he has outlined must be sent to the Falkland Islands six weeks in advance? Surely that is a most unusual procedure, particularly as it has operated only for a year.

Mr. Ridley: The documentation requirement is to ensure that travellers to the Falkland Islands have the right documents for entry. It ensures that they are not turned back. There is no sinister motive. I understand that it is perfectly possible to book seats on flights to Port Stanley at short notice. Sometimes the flights are full, but it is usually possible to obtain a seat. With a few weeks' notice, it is always possible to book a seat.

Mr. William Shelton: Since it looks as if there will not be any speedy solution to the dispute between the Falkland Islands and Argentina, does my hon. Friend have any plans to help those on the Falkland Islands more directly?

Mr. Ridley: As my hon. Friend knows, last month we held a round of talks with the Argentinians in New York. It was agreed to meet again to discuss the matter further. In the meanwhile, we are continuing to help the islands in every possible way through aid and other measures. However, the dispute is certainly inhibiting economic development.

El Salvador

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations he has had with the United Kingdom's European partners with a view to formulating a common policy on the problem of El Salvador.

Mr. Ridley: The subject of El Salvador has been considered at official level within the political cooperation framework, and will shortly be discussed by Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister confirm the reports that appeared in some of this morning's newspapers to the effect that the EEC has unfrozen aid to El Salvador despite the representations made by the United States of America? Does not he agree that the sooner we dissociate ourselves as far as possible from the policies of the United States of America on Latin America in general, and on El Salvador in particular, the better?

Mr. Ridley: The EEC has agreed to provide 400,000 ECUs in cash, and 1,050 tonnes of cereals to the Red Cross in order to relieve the suffering of refugees in El Salvador. Assurances have been given that the aid will reach those for whom it is intended, namely, the refugees. Our policy on El Salvador was set out in a statement, which my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary made just before he left for Washington.

Mr. Stokes: What interests does the United Kingdom have in El Salvador? If those interests are nil, should not we direct out attention to countries with which we have closer connections?

Mr. Ridley: It is true that historically and traditionally we have not had great contact with or interests in El Salvador. However, everybody must be concerned about the savage civil war that is being fought there. We should like to do anything that we can to help. However, it is not an area in which we are principally concerned.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What powers or rights has the EEC, as such, in these matters?

Mr. Ridley: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the EEC operates a considerable aid programme. Quite rightly, it has directed aid to the refugees. It has directed aid not to either side of the dispute, but towards the relief of distress among refugees.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the strengthening of militarist regimes in Central America could well he a threat to the agreement on Belize which the hon. Gentleman announced to the House yesterday? 
With regard to El Salvador in particular, now that even the State Department has admitted that the hullabaloo over Communist arms to El Salvador was grossly exaggerated, and America can declare a victory on that matter whenever it wishes, is it not in the interests of this country, and of all countries which wish for peace in the world, to concentrate their efforts on trying to get negotiations for a peaceful conclusion to the civil war, with support from members of the European Community or, indeed, El Salvador's neighbours, such as Panama, Mexico and Guatemala?

Mr. Ridley: We have made clear—I quote from the statement—that
Her Majesty's Government consider that the people of El Salvador should be able to determine their own future peacefully and democratically.


I must also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the President of El Salvador, Mr. Duarte, has called for elections next year, and that the Americans are trying to help him to procure those elections even earlier.[Interruption.] That is something that the right hon. Gentleman should welcome, even if those behind him do not.

Mr. Healey: I think that there is no one in this House who would not welcome free and fair elections in El Salvador, the results of which were respected by the military junta there, unlike the results of the last election in El Salvador. But the case still remains that there will not be a peaceful end to the civil war without negotiation between the two sides, with some support from friendly countries outside. Why will not the Government support these efforts?

Mr. Ridley: We are happy to support any chance that talks would bring peace between the sides. What I question is whether this is the right moment and whether we are the right people to initiate such talks, particularly as we have very few historical or traditional ties with El Salvador.
The right hon. Gentleman must be convinced, as I have been, that the Communists have been supplying large quantities of arms to the other side, and that has greatly exacerbated the difficulty and made a solution of the dispute infinitely more difficult.

Mr. Budgen: Did my hon. Friend notice that, in relation to Afghanistan, the nation States of the EEC demonstrated completely divergent views and interests? Will he not agree that it is now necessary to adopt a national attitude towards these various problems rather than to attempt a pretentious EEC solution?

Mr. Ridley: While I do not accept what my hon. Friend said about Afghanistan, I think that the countries of the EEC are acting in concert over El Salvador. There is no suggestion at the present time that they are putting themselves forward to mediate in the dispute, but equally there is no dispute between them about the situation there.

Rapid Deployment Force

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations have been received from foreign Governments concerning the proposed rapid deployment force; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): There have been no formal representations. We are of course in frequent touch with our friends and allies on these matters.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Following the Prime Minister's excellent statement in Washington, are not the Royal Marine commando forces admirably suited to this purpose? While we would not wish to force any military assistance upon any other Power, is it not necessary, when the Soviet Union occupies Afghanistan, Aden and other vital points, and has fleets in nearly every ocean of the world, that we should at least have a comparable maritime counter force?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence dealt at some length at Question Time yesterday with the forces that we have or might have available, including the Spearhead battalion. The concept outlined by the Prime Minister in Washington is really

very simple. We are conscious, as are several of our allies, of the Soviet threat outside the NATO area. We have certain resources available. It seems sensible to work together to make those resources effective.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the Minister urgently consult our NATO allies to ascertain their views on that rather strange declaration yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence, namely, that NATO-assigned forces would be made available to a rapid deployment force for use outside the NATO area?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman put that question to my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend dealt with it then. I have nothing to add to what he said.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend agree that as a precursor to the effectiveness of a rapid deployment force, treaties of mutual assistance or defence might be entered into with those countries that might be considered to be under threat from the Soviet Union?

Mr. Hurd: With regard to the Gulf States, which my hon. Friend perhaps has in mind, we take the view that their security is primarily a matter for themselves. We are in very close touch with them and they know that if they require assistance, we—and no doubt our friends, but certainly we ourselves—would be glad to give it. That is clearly understood and I do not think that it needs underwriting by formal treaty.

Mr. Moyle: If the hon. Gentleman believes that defence is best left to the countries in the area, why was it that the Prime Minister made her announcement that there would be a rapid deployment force and that it could be used in the Gulf before there was any question of consultation with our allies? What did the Government say to Mr. Hammadi of Iraq last week when he argued against the establishment of the force?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. We are not talking about permanently stationing British forces in the Gulf, or of a new formal treaty relationship: This is absolutely understood in the Gulf. One or two newspapers in the Gulf took it up the wrong way but there is no misunderstanding, either with the Iraq Government or with the other Governments of the Gulf, with all of whom we have recently been in touch.

Middle East (European Community Initiative)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Lord Privy Seal what response has been made by the United States authorities to the United Kingdom's assurance that the European Economic Community initiative on the Middle East, stemming from the Venice Declaration, was intended to complement the United States' efforts.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): The United States State Department made the following statement on 4 March:
We have made plain that this Administration supports the ongoing peace process and intends to build on it in seeking a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We feel that the talks over the past days here with our European allies have confirmed that all of us have a major interest in achieving peace in the Middle East and strengthening security against the Soviet threat there. We are confident that they understand the importance of taking no action that would undercut the peace process. We particularly welcome Mrs. Thatcher's public remarks here that the efforts of the European Community Ten are


meant to be complementary to efforts being made by the United States to move towards the comprehensive settlement we all seek.

Mr. Janner: Did the Foreign Secretary discuss with the United States authorities the unhappy possibility that he might meet Yasser Arafat and, if so, what response did he receive?

Sir Ian Gilmour: As far as I know, that was not discussed. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time recently, that it may well be necessary for my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary to meet Mr. Arafat or the PLO during the Presidency.

Mr. Churchill: Disgraceful.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Although, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have had no ministerial contacts with the PLO, we have not ruled that out, but we have always said that it would be much easier to have such contacts if the PLO changed its attitude.

Sir Hugh Fraser: The rather obscure communiqu— which my right hon. Friend read out surely points to the fact that, from the Americans' point of view, the only "ongoing peace process" is the Camp David agreement. Surely it is time now that it was admitted publicly that the so-called European initiative has gone into total abeyance.

Sir Ian Gilmour: With respect, what my right hon. Friend says is quite untrue. It may have been the way I read it out, but I do not think that the statement was very obscure. My right hon. Friend will remember that the European initiative took place at the time when the Camp David process seemed to be more or less in abeyance. We hope that it will not remain in abeyance. Equally, I assure him that the European peace initiative is also not in abeyance.

Mr. David Watkins: Would not the best way to complement the efforts of the United States be to recognise unequivocally the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in accordance with United Nations principles, and to point out to the American Government the error of their ways in not doing likewise?

Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the twin principles in the European initiative announced at Venice—that the legitimate rights of the Palestinians should be recognised and, at the same time, that the security of Israel should be recognised. That is a good way forward towards peace.

Mr. Walters: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is essential to bring back the United States into the centre of the peace-making process in the Middle East, it is also extremely important that the momentum of the European initiative should not be lost? Does he agree that the present speeding-up of the Israeli settlements on the West Bank is quite intolerable? What do the Government propose to do about that?

Sir Ian Gilmour: On the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I hope that we can all agree that we regret the speeding-up of settlements on the West Bank. As the House knows, the Government and earlier British Governments have always believed strongly that those settlements are illegal and are an obstacle to peace. I agree that the momentum should be kept up and that the United States should he brought back—if it has ever left—to the

centre of the peace-making stage. As my hon. Friend will be aware, Mr. Haig will be visiting the area next month. We all agree that that is an excellent thing to be doing.

Middle East (Peace Moves)

Dr. M. S. Miller: asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations have taken place Syria in connection with peace moves in the Middle East.

Mr. Woodall: asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations have taken place with Jordan in the context of the European Economic Community proposals for a Middle East peace.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Mr. van der Klaauw, the Netherlands Foreign Minister, visited Syria and Jordan last month on behalf of the 10 members of the European Community in order to discuss the practical issues involved in a peace settlement, as decided by the European Council meeting of 2 December. I paid bilateral visits to Jordan and Syria from 1 to 6 February. The prospects for a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute were among the subjects discussed.

Dr. Miller: Has the right hon. Gentleman got clear from the Syrians whether they still have eyes on the whole of the land of Palestine? The next time he is in the vicinity of Aleppo or Damascus, will he make clear that the interests of the area and the interests of Syria would be best served by coming to an agreement with Israel, as the one country in the area which can be of benefit to the whole of the Middle East?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree that Syria would be well advised to come to an agreement with Israel, just as Israel would be well advised to come to an agreement with Syria. We all support that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As far as I know, Syria does not, as he put it, have its eyes on the whole of Palestine. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Syrian Government have., since the 1973 war, always accepted Security Council resolution No. 338, thereby implicitly accepting No. 242. I have no doubt that, both from their public and private statements, they support a negotiated peace.

Mr. Woodall: What talks have taken place with Jordan to try to persuade it to recognise Israel? What talks has the right hon. Gentleman had with Jordan to persuade it to enter into peace talks, whether at Camp David or anywhere else, with a view to bringing a long-term peace to the Middle East?

Sir Ian Gilmour: As King Hussein has for a long time made clear, Jordan has supported a peaceful settlement of the Middle East controversy. That has always been his view. He has been explicit on that point for many years. But if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the so-called Jordanian option, King Hussein, like many other people, has made it plain that, although Jordan has an important part to play in peace negotiations, there can be no question of Jordan cutting out the Palestinians.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I believe that my right hon. Friend has already said so, but is it not clear that it would be very much against the interests of Jordan to take the lead in the matter of the West Bank and quite impossible to rely on that as a stepping stone to future policy?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That has been agreed throughout the Arab world ever since


the Rabat conference with which King Hussein thoroughly agreed. He has made it clear that the so-called Jordanian option is not a real option.

Mr. Hooley: Now that the Knesset has wisely thrown out the stupid and provocative Bill purporting to annexe the Golan—Syrian territory, would it not be a further advance if Israel began to remove its settlements and military forces from Syria?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I have already made our view clear to the House and to the hon. Gentleman on settlements in the occupied territories. We think that they are illegal and have no doubt that they are an obstacle to peace.

Mr. Churchill: What grounds can my right hon. Friend advance for believing that the PLO is any more representative of the wishes and aspirations of the Palestinian people than the IRA is of the Irish Catholic community in Northern Ireland?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not think that my hon. Friend can be serious in asking that question.

Mr. Churchill: Indeed I am.

Sir Ian Gilmour: It has often been shown, both in the Republic of Ireland and in the North, that the IRA enjoys virtually no popular support. If my hon. Friend believes that the PLO enjoys no popular support among the Palestinians, either on the West Bank, in the refugee camps or elsewhere, he should go there and find out for himself.

Gleneagles Agreement

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will seek to terminate the Gleneagles agreement with a view to renewing sporting links with South Africa.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): No, Sir.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Gleneagles agreement has become an easy political move from any country wishing to harm South Africa? Is he not concerned that the recent black list of sportsmen drawn up by the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee is a gross infringement of personal liberty? Will he assure the House that the Government will dissociate themselves from any United Nations resolution that may support the existence of that list?

Mr. Blaker: The black list is a different matter from the Gleneagles agreement. I assure my hon. Friend that we could not accept any proposal which obliged the British Government to impose limitations on the freedom of movement of our own citizens.

Mr. Sever: Will the Minister take the opportunity today to reaffirm the Government's belief that apartheid is totally unacceptable to the British people? Will he take the opportunity, in a statement which he could issue today, to advise British sports people invited to South Africa that they should not go, since that is tantamount to accepting apartheid?

Mr. Blaker: We have frequently made our position clear on that. We strongly disapprove of apartheid. On several occasions we have communicated our continued support for the Gleneagles agreement to sporting organisations.

Mr. Wall: What positive action does my hon. Friend propose to take to prevent blackmail of individual sportsmen, as appears to be proposed by various neo-Marxist organisations?

Mr. Blaker: There are already signs that some countries are having second thoughts about the blackmail involved in such black lists. I cite the example of the statement by the four West Indian Governments recently made in connection with cricket. We cannot dictate to other countries whom they will admit into their territory, but we insist that our sporting organisations should have the right to choose their own teams. We insist that we cannot be obliged to dictate to our sportsmen where and when they go.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Minister agree with the statement made last night by the President of Nigeria to the effect that we should reduce our ties, especially our economic ties, with South Africa? Is it not a fact that the odious policies of the South African Government not only create instability in Southern Africa but threaten both the commercial and security interests of Western democracies?

Mr. Blaker: As we have frequently made clear, we draw a distinction between economic ties on the one hand and sporting ties on the other. In connection with sporting ties, there is no doubt that the actions taken in the past have led to increased integration in South Africa. In relation to economic ties with South Africa, I have nothing to add to what has already been said many times by the Government on that subject.

United Nations Special Session on Disarmament

Mr. Marks: asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government plan to make to the 1982 United Nations special session on disarmament.

Mr. Hurd: The first full meeting of the preparatory committee for the second United Nations special session on disarmament will by held in May. We are considering with our partners and allies the nature of the Western contribution.

Mr. Marks: Are the Government taking any serious initiative in this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Campaign for World Disarmament, for which the Government expressed support last year, is organising a petition calling on all Governments and the United Nations Assembly to abolish nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction? Will the Government support that campaign and will the Minister sign that petition?

Mr. Hurd: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. Everyone in his senses wants to see arms control agreements and then disarmament agreements, but they will come about by negotiation and not by the signing of petitions. Negotiations will succeed only if there is a reasonably hard-headed approach to them, based on balance in the first place and verification in the second place.

Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend remind Labour Members that the French put forward specific and realistic proposals at the Madrid review conference on European disarmament, which were backed by the British Government and the United States, and that the Soviet Union persistently blocked those proposals because they


involved verifiable notification of Soviet troop manoeuvres, as well as everybody else's troop manoeuvres? Is it not clear that, under the guise of protracted talks on disarmament, the Soviet Union simply wants to build up its own relative military strength?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right about the French proposal on confidence-building measures. We are exploring a rather difficult passage in Mr. Brezhnev's speech to see whether there is any advance there, but I agree with my hon. Friend's general point.

Mr. Healey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even more urgent than a United Nations special assembly or even a European disarmamemt conference, are negotiations between the Soviet Union and the Western allies on the limitation of medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, bearing in mind particularly that the rate of deployment of SS20s by the Soviet Union looks like rising from one a fortnight to two a week over the next 12 months? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the British representative at the forthcoming consultative committee does his utmost to press for early substantive negotiations between the Soviet Union and the West on that matter?

Mr. Hurd: We are in favour of that and we are therefore glad that President Reagan's Administration have made clear that they are also in favour. However, we are not in favour of accepting that the talks should be on the basis of President Brezhnev's latest proposal of a moratorium on such deployment which would take place when the Soviet Union has an advantage of 4:1 in this respect.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that, given the rate of deployment of SS20s, by the time the first of the Pershing II or cruise missiles is deployed in Europe the Soviet superiority could have risen to 20:1? In those circumstances, is it in the West's interests to avoid negotiations until Western missiles have been deployed?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman does not put the position fairly. We are not avoiding negotiations; we are in favour of negotiations, but only on a realistic basis. Meanwhile, we are proceeding with the plans agreed by NATO for TNF modernisation, which will start becoming effective in 1983.

Commonwealth Foreign Ministers

Mr. Murphy: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he holds regular consultations with Foreign Ministers of Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Blaker: There are opportunities for Commonwealth Foreign Ministers to meet during the regular Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. There are also numerous bilateral contacts between my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself and individual Commonwealth Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I ask whether he agrees that the Government should strive for closer Commonwealth co-operation on major international policy issues of interest to the free world?

Mr. Blaker: I heartily agree with my hon. Friend. The discussions that we have had with our Commonwealth colleagues, whether at the Heads of Government meeting, on the fringes of that meeting or bilaterally, have often

covered the question of the preservation of the interests of the free world. There is no doubt that the principles and ideals on which the Commonwealth is based are inconsistent with the threat to the free world.

Mr. James A. Dunn: What representations have been made to the Minister through the channels arranged for those regular meetings about the interpretation of and misunderstanding arising from the British Nationality Bill? Will he further take into account the grave apprehension expressed about the increase in overseas students' fees?

Mr. Blaker: Formal representations about the British Nationality Bill have been made to the Government by only one Commonwealth Government. The points made are being taken into account by my right hon. Friend Home Secretary and no doubt they will be considered in the coming weeks. Fees for overseas students are certainly a matter of concern to many Commonwealth Governments. The hon. Gentleman knows that the decision to phase out the blanket subsidy was taken with reluctance, in the interests of attempting to control Government spending. We are closely monitoring its effects.

Mr. Jim Spicer: In the course of such consultations there will obviously be discussions about sporting links with South Africa. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking, in advance of such consultations, that he will pass to representatives of the Commonwealth the report of the fact-finding commission sent to South Africa by the Sports Council, because it gives a fair opinion of the efforts being made to integrate sport in South Africa?

Mr. Blaker: I agree with my hon. Friend about the value of that report. It has been sent to many destinations, including the International Olympic Committee and international sporting federations. I shall inquire whether it has been communicated to Commonwealth Governments. I accept that at the forthcoming Heads of Government meeting the question of sporting links with South Africa will be discussed. We have already had notice from four West Indian countries that they propose to raise the matter.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while Lord Carrington made clear in Lagos a few weeks ago that the Government had not ruled out the possibility of economic sanctions against South Africa, the Prime Minister made clear yesterday that there would be no such sanctions? What explanation will the Government give to President Shagari of Nigeria, who is visiting this country, for that apparent change of policy?

Mr. Blaker: I cannot add to the statements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

United States Secretary of State

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next intends to meet the United States Secretary of Stale to follow up matters discussed in the recent official visit to the United States of America.

Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend hopes to meet the United States Secretary of State when he is in London on 9 April.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister of State press Mr. Haig to respond to the recent offer by Mr. Brezhnev on SALT,


cruise missiles and troop movements, thus lessening East-West tension, rather than heightening it, as the Iron Maiden is doing?

Mr. Ridley: We always discuss these matters with our American allies, but there will be no readiness to concede military weakness as a ground for giving away any part of our defences. I am sure that all such matters will be discussed at future meetings and I hope that in the meantime the hon. Gentleman will agree that we should keep up our guard and make sure that we do not have any agreement that disadvantages the West.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new American Secretary of State, General Haig, has made some sensible and positive pronouncements about the importance of Southern Africa and, in particular, of Namibia? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should support the determination of the United States not to allow the Marxist jackboot to take over Southern Africa, which is so important to the whole Western world, not only because of its strategic position, but because of the vital raw materials that it possesses?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend can assess what the American Secretary of State says about all those matters. I assure him that full and agreeable talks took place between my right hon. Friends and the Secretary of State in Washington and that the situation was discussed without any great divergence of view.

Mr. Denzil Davies: When the Foreign Secretary meets the Secretary of State will he emphasise to him the considerable alarm that exists in many parts of this country over the manner in which the United States Administration are conducting their foreign policy in South America? I refer particularly to the oblique harassment of the Nicaraguan Government, the attempt to bolster the unjust economic regime in El Salvador and now the attempts to get even closer to the military dictatorships of Argentina and Chile.

Mr. Ridley: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has to admit that those who supply arms clandestinely to aid the rebels who are fighting against an established Government have every right to incur censure from the American Government, from ourselves, and from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Latham: Did Mr. Alexander Haig say to the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary in Washington, or subsequently, that he actually approved of, and welcomed, the EEC initiative on the Middle East?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot give a full answer to that question, not having been present on that occasion. I can assure my hon. Friend that it was agreed that the Venice declaration was complementary to and not in conflict with what the Americans are seeking to do through Camp David.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Spain and Portugal (Accession)

Mr. Squire: asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in negotiating the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Economic Community.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Community Foreign Ministers met the Spanish Foreign Minister in Brussels on 16 March. A number of new papers were tabled by both sides. The meeting reviewed the progress of the negotiations so far and the Community reaffirmed its commitment to Spanish membership. There will be a ministerial meeting with Portugal in April. The Community is keeping to its working programme of three meetings a year at ministerial level with each applicant.

Mr. Squire: In the light of recent events, will my right hon. Friend confirm the increased importance of enabling these two democracies to gain accession at the earliest opportunity and to be strengthened by that membership? Will he also undertake to discuss with his ministerial equivalents in the rest of the EEC possible interim assistance, either financial or political, that may have the effect of strengthening these democracies?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree thoroughly with what my hon. Friend says. Recent events have stressed the importance of these negotiations being successful. In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, Spain has applied for a pre-accession loan from the European Investment Bank. We are in favour of this in principle although the details remain to be decided. We are also ready to help Spain in other ways.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Since economic convergence remains a Community objective, does the Minister believe that it will be possible to make any significant contribution to the economies of Portugal or Spain through the regional and social funds without an increase in the total EEC budget?

Sir Ian Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we, like a number of member States, if not all, are in favour of maintaining the 1 per cent. VAT limit. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question will become clearer during the restructuring negotiations and also during the negotiations on enlargement.

Mr. McQuarrie: When my right hon. Friend has further discussions with the Spanish Foreign Minister on the accession of Spain to the EEC, will he endeavour to get a firm commitment on the date of the implementation of the Lisbon agreement? This was drawn up on 8 April 1980, but still the border remains closed between the Spanish mainland and Gibraltar.

Sir Ian Gilmour: What my hon. Friend says is regrettably true. We are approaching the first anniversary of that agreement and it has not yet been implemented. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been ready to implement it from the word "Go". We very much hope that the Spanish Government will agree to do so before long.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the consolidation of democracy in Spain is an essential condition for Spain's integration into Europe and the rest of the world and that a military takeover, such as was fortunately avoided some weeks ago, could lead only to the isolation of Spain, not only in Europe, but in the world as a whole?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. A military takeover in Spain when there has been such a successful return to democracy would be even more unjustified than similar military takeovers. It would be a historic leap backwards. It would plainly be vastly


unpopular with almost the whole population of Spain. It would, indeed, ensure the isolation of Spain from the rest of Europe, because adherence to democracy is a fundamental requirement for all members of the European Community.

Standardisation Discussions

Mr. Cryer: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next intends to discuss with his European Economic Community counterparts the standardisation of European Economic Community affairs.

Sir Ian Gilmour: There is no proposal on the "standardisation of European Community affairs", and I have no plans to discuss it, especially as I do not know what it means.

Mr. Cryer: I can perhaps enlighten the Minister. Is he aware, for example, that the textile industry deeply resents the wide variety of subsidies given to other EEC textile industries, which are costing thousands of jobs in this country? Is he aware that no progress seems to have been made either in tabulating or eliminating those subsidies in other EEC countries? 
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the poultry processing industry has been waiting for many months for standardisation of inspection of poultry meat? Nothing seems to have been done in that respect. Is it not, therefore, true that, because of the free movement of goods within the Community, these subsidies are costing jobs in the United Kingdom and, hence, increasing the pressure to re-examine our membership of the EEC simply to preserve jobs?

Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman is normally against standardisation and harmonisation. I note that he has now modified his view. If he has evidence of what he says and that this is not being properly followed up, I hope that he will give it to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I doubt very much whether the difficulties of our textile industry, in common with a number of other textile industries, are due to unfair competition from within the European Community. I think that they are much more due to competition from the developing world. I shall be delighted to look at any evidence that the hon. Gentleman can give me.

Mr. Marlow: Will My right hon. Friend tell me what political gremlins got into the system when Her Majesty's Government agreed to the provision of a European passport? Does he not realise what an outrage it is against the British people? Will he take whatever action is necessary to prevent this proposal being carried through?

Sir Ian Gilmour: The British Government have not agreed to any such thing and there has not been a proposal. There is no proposal to end a British national passport. Of course the British passport will remain a British passport. All that has been agreed is that the Community nations will have a common format of passport. That was agreed in principle by the Labour Government as long ago as 1974. My right hon. and noble Friend made clear in Brussels on Monday that the timing of this must remain in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. We have agreed in principle, as I told the House on 13 March, to go over to a machine-readable passport. That would coincide with the introduction of a common format passport. We have no intention of introducing two such passports.

Mr. Jay: Can the House be given a rather fuller statement on the EEC passport proposal so that we may know what it means? Can hon Members be assured that there will be a debate in the House before a final decision is taken by the Government?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not honestly believe that it is a complicated proposal, but I shall see that more information is provided. The target date, even for the Community, is 1985. We have said that we probably cannot meet that date because of the requirement that it should coincide with the introduction of the ICAO passport. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the timing is such that there will be a great many opportunities to debate the matter.

Sir Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend agree that this matter has gone much further than he says, as is shown by the statement in The Times today? What is more, will he instruct his officials to withdraw the portrait of Sir Walter Scott which appears on the facsimile? Sir Walter Scott at least wrote:
Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land!
To put Sir Walter Scott's picture on the proposed new passport while withdrawing the British passport is not only illiterate but unbecoming. Do Foreign Office Ministers do nothing but read Gogol's "Dead Souls"?

Sir Ian Gilmour: That was a very good and well-prepared supplementary question. As I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr.Marlow), we are not ending the British passport. My right hon. Friend's annoyance is, therefore, based on a false premise. We have not gone further than I warned the House in a reply on Friday. We are talking about a common format passport. The important characteristics of the British passport, the coat of arms and the usual rubric, will still be there. My right hon. Friend need not be so worried.

External Representation (Costs)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government, during their tenure of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, will press for a reexamination of the Proposals for improvements in the cost-effectiveness of the Community's external representation made in the Commission's communication of 9 March 1978 (COM) (78) 66 final).

Sir Ian Gilmour: The Commission's communication of 9 March 1978, which largely concerns matters within the Commission's competence, was noted by the Council of Ministers in September 1978. The Council expressed general agreement with the Commission's analysis. The United Kingdom continues to attach importance to securing the maximum cost-effectiveness in the Community's external representation, on the basis of the Council of Ministers' earlier conclusions.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will there not always be considerable scope for economies in the manning and competence of overseas missions by pooling activities in many cases, or by delegating activities to the local offices of the European Community itself?

Sir Ian Gilmour: My hon. Friend is right. There is scope for a great deal of co-operation. As he knows, a great deal of co-operation already exists among regular


heads of missions in most capitals. We are certainly prepared to consider any ideas or proposals for further coordination and rationalisation which will save money and increase efficiency.

Mr. Lawrence: During the Foreign Secretary's tenure as President, does he propose to meet Mr. Yasser Arafat? If so, does he consider that that will do much to reassure the State of Israel that its security is guaranteed?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I am not sure how that question arises from the original question. I answered the question earlier. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, it might be necessary for the Foreign Secretary, when he is President, to meet Mr. Arafat. I do not agree with the premise of my hon. Friend's question. I do not believe that to cut off all contact with the PLO is likely to bring about a peaceful settlement.

Foreign Policy

Mr. Knox: asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress is being made for the strengthening of foreign policy co-operation in the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Following the instruction from the Foreign Ministers' meeting on 4 November last year, officials of the Ten are currently examining ways of improving political co-operation. They will report to Ministers in due course.

Mr. Knox: In what spheres does my right hon. Friend expect that foreign affairs initiatives will be taken during the period that we have the Presidency of the Council of Ministers? Does he expect further developments in the Middle East?

Sir Ian Gilmour: A general answer is difficult to give. Unfortunately, I do not have the necessary degree of far-sightedness. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, that will depend on the current round of visits and the report by the Netherlands' Foreign Minister, Mr. van der Klaauw. We shall then see what the next development of the European initiative should be.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister undertake to continue to press for a European initiative for peace in the Middle East? In doing so, will he undertake to consult not only Israel and the front-line Arab States but representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation?

Sir Ian Gilmour: We have already dealt with that to some extent. Of course, it is important, in pursuance of the European initiative, that contacts should be maintained with Israel and all the relevant Arab States. The Venice declaration mentions the PLO, so it has to be connected with the peace settlement. I am sure that that is true.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend regard the introduction of the Common Market format burgundy passport as a contribution to foreign policy? If not, what is it supposed to achieve? Does my right hon. Friend realise that his earlier answer trivialises what many people regard as a serious matter? Can he confirm that, whatever the legalities, he would like the House of Commons to make the final decision?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not understand why "burgundy" should be regarded as such a form of abuse. I do not agree that I was trivialising the matter. I was making it clear that

the change cannot and will not happen for a number of years. Therefore, there is no question of the House of Commons being bounced into it. The idea that there will be no opportunity for discussion is far from our minds. As I told the House a month ago, the issue has been on the agenda since 1974. It has not been rushed.

Mr. James Lamond: If co-operation on foreign policy is strengthened, does that mean that the British Government will be more frequently on the side of freedom, humanity and common justice rather than backing brutal Fascist regimes, such as that represented by the junta in El Salvador?

Sir Ian Gilmour: Both the general and particular premises on which that question is based are wrong. We are on the side of freedom. We do not back, in general, brutal Fascist regimes. My hon. Friend made clear earlier our attitude to the El Salvador difficulties.

Legislation

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the volume and scope of European Economic Community legislation; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The Confederation of British Industry sent me a copy of the confederation's study "The Impact of European Economic Community Legislation on British Business". This study sets out the CBI's attitude on this question and my colleagues and I have found it very helpful. We share the CBI's belief that legislation can be justified only where there is a tangible and positive benefit.

Mr. Taylor: As the Government are committed to a reduction in the volume of legislation, what is the Minister doing to try to reduce the amount of trivial legislation which causes a great deal of concern and cost to industry? What success has he had? In particular, has he been able to give any joy at all to the CBI about the appalling lack of effectiveness of the anti-dumping procedures in the EEC since they involve a mass of paper and regulations which are wholly ineffective and are destroying jobs in Britain?

Sir Ian Gilmour: Our view on the first part of my hon. Friend's question is expressed in my main answer. We share the CBI view and we have made our view clear to the Commission. I hope that it will find general agreement. I do not agree that the anti-dumping legislation is monumentally ineffective. If my hon. Friend sends me examples or gives them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, we shall examine them. My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a difficult matter, whether the EEC or an individual State is dealing with it. It is often difficult to act in time. If my hon. Friend provides evidence we shall certainly act upon it.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not time that the EEC, especially the Commission, stopped wasting time on trivial legislation which puts a burden on industry? Would it not be better to reform the EEC which, after almost 30 years, is still suffering from the common agricultural policy, which is completely irrelevant to Europe today? Does he agree that the EEC has no industrial policy which is relevant to the problems of Western Europe?

Sir Ian Gilmour: We all agree that we do not want to waste time on trivial legislation. We are also in favour of reforming the CAP and the Community. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's language but I accept the general drift of his argument.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of British industry believes that harmonisation for harmonisation's sake is irritating and harmful? Is he aware that he must do something to get the bureaucrats off the back of British industry, otherwise it will begin to fall out with the concept?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree that harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation is a waste of time and is wrong. The CBI study to which I referred strongly supports our membership of the Community.

Mr. Jay: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that a number of EEC legislative proposals recommended by the Scrutiny

Committee for debate in the House have not yet been debated? Will the Government bring them forward? Can we be sure that the Government will not accept them in Brussels before they have been debated in the House?

Sir Ian Gilmour: If the proposals have been outstanding for a long time they will be debated before they are acted upon. I shall look into the matter. I think that the right hon,. Gentleman is aware that we have been scrupulous in these matters, and we will continue to be so.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 3 APRIL

Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Gerry Neale
Mr. Marcus Kimball
Dr. M. S. Miller

Questions to Ministers (Privilege)

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of the point that I wish to raise. I did not do so because I had hoped that someone else would raise it. As a member of the Committee of Privileges I am naturally concerned that parliamentary privilege should at all times be defended. I submit that it is difficult to defend it if there are signs that, on occasions, it is abused.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to two questions that appeared on the Order Paper today. They named a retired public servant and asked for further inquiries to be made into his activities. Presumably the questions must be in order or they would not have appeared on the Order Paper. If we feel that something of this nature requires to be investigated we have a duty to use our considerable powers to pursue it privately and to be careful of bandying about names, even in the Chamber. It is an extension of the use of privilege not to name a person in the Chamber but to use the Order Paper as the means of doing so. I suggest that that creates a dubious precedent of which we should be very careful.

Mr. Speaker: The House and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I did not have notice of the point of order. However, like other hon. Members, I studied the Order Paper with special care because of the publicity that had preceded the questions. The House is also aware that the privilege of free speech and protection that we enjoy in the House is our most cherished possession. It gives real significance and power to the House. Therefore, there is a special obligation on us all to ensure that we never abuse that privilege.
The questions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were technically in order, otherwise they would not have appeared on the Order Paper. I can say no more than that.

Transport Act 1962 (Amendment)

Mr. Tony Speller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Secretary of State to waive sections 54 and 56 of the Transport Act 1962 upon specific application by British Railways naming the section of line to be re-opened on a trial basis.
Section 54 of the Act instructs the British Railways Board to give the public notice of plans to discontinue any railway passenger or goods service. Section 56 established the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain. It gave certain powers to that committee. The committee's duty is to consider and to make recommendations on matters affecting services and facilities provided by the board. When it proposes to discontinue any service it must give notice, publish details, state objections and, in due course, work towards a public inquiry.
That full procedure is costly and time consuming, but reasonable in view of the local importance of any rail service. However, the procedure applies in every case, so that British Rail dare not experiment by reopening to passenger traffic lines such as the Barnstaple to Bideford line, in North Devon, because of the cost of reclosing it should the experiment fail.
What began as a small Ten-Minute Bill of local interest has grown to something serpentine in size. The National Council on Inland Transport mentioned specifically the future needs, in terms of passenger traffic, of the Bletchley to Oxford line, thinking especially of the growth of Milton Keynes. In the North, it referred to the Woodhead route on the Sheffield to Manchester line, and in the South-East to the Hoo peninsula for Medway town commuters. The transport users' consultative committee mentioned the Bristol to Portishead line and the Chippenham to Trowbridge line, via Melksham.
In my area I have already mentioned the Barnstaple to Bideford line. In the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) there is the Exeter to Okehampton line. I understand that in the old Vale of Glamorgan, in South Wales, the Bridgend to Barry line has a goods service but not a passenger service. That would be of use to commuters. In Scotland, there is the Alloa to Stirling line. In the North, the new Tyneside metro needs connection from rural areas to make even more use of that most valuable and sensible form of transport. It helps people from rural areas to reach the towns and relieves urban congestion.
I apologise for not informing every hon. Member whose constituency is traversed by one of the many lines that I have mentioned. As I said, I had thought to introduce a small minnow, but it has grown into a large fish. The sponsors for the Bill include four Opposition and four Government Members. Bodies outside the House support it, including the Association of District Councils, many individual councils and many interested railway and amenity groups.
Last year, in answer to a question on 3 April, the Secretary of State for Transport agreed that the experimental reopening of some passenger services merited consideration. He said that he had no power to waive the provisions of sections 54 and 56 of the Act. This minor and amending Bill seeks to provide those powers. It will cost nothing to implement, but the financial and environmental benefits can be substantial if we can induce more people out of cars and on to trains. If the experiment


succeeds, British Rail and the country will gain. If it fails, we shall be no worse off than before. I am happy with the support that has come from all parts of the House for both public transport and the rail service. We envisage modernisation, electrification and all the good things that will come, especially to the urban areas.
I represent a more rural area. It is vital, especially with the rising cost of fuel and the virtual absence of public transport, that we should support everything that gets people out of the one-person-one-car system and into the one-railway-many-people system. It makes sense to me in terms of economy. It makes sense to many of us in terms of conservation. In this brief speech I ask for support for this minor and non-controversial measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. Walter Johnson, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Ron Lewis and Mr. Peter Snape.

TRANSPORT ACT 1962 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Tony Speller accordingly presented a Bill to empower the Secretary of State to waive sections 54 and 56 of the Transport Act 1962 upon specific application by British Railways naming the section of line to be reopened on a trial basis: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 March and to be printed [Bill 96].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[I2TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Economic Situation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Today we are engaging in what can only be described as a unique debate, for this is the first time that anyone can recall the official Opposition using up their own debating time to discuss the Northern Ireland economy. We have made this unprecedented move as an expression of our deep concern about the exceptional economic crisis that prevails in the Province today, and because all the figures on unemployment, redundancies, factory closures and social deprivation over the past 19 months demonstrate incontrovertibly that Government policies are having a most adverse effect on the Northern Ireland economy.
We have a cut-off point of near 7 o'clock for this debate. I should like the co-operation of right hon. and hon. Members, because when my colleagues decided to allow it I promised them that I would try to end it by 7 o'clock, for there is other important business before the House. I hope that we shall have the co-operation of all right hon. and hon. Members on this matter.
I do not intend to retrace the arguments and points put forward when I last spoke to the House on these matters, on 9 March in the debate on the Appropriation order, as reported at col. 680. However, at this point a brief summary of the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland is essential to put this debate in context.
The economic future of Northern Ireland looks ominous, to say the very least. Government expenditure plans for the next two years, published last week, clearly state that unemployment is expected to rise in the Province over that period. If we include school leavers. adult students and the temporarily stopped, the Government not only predict but are budgeting for an unemployment level of 128,000 people by 1982. That is almost 25 per cent. of the adult working population.
I remind those hon. Members who are used to speaking in millions that 25 per cent. unemployed in the rest of Great Britain would mean over 5 million people out of work—a sobering thought for even the strongest supporter of the Prime Minister's policies.
The main stimulus for this debate has been the rising tide of unemployment in Northern Ireland over the past 12 to 15 months. During that period, month by month new records have been set. The rate of increase has leapfrogged. The percentage of the work force out of work at the last count was 17·3. This is now the highest regional total in the United Kingdom. Again, 17·3 per cent. of a work force of 100,000 in Northern Ireland represents on the mainland of Great Britain an unemployment level of over 4 million. That 17·3 per cent. hides pockets in small towns in Northern Ireland with unemployment rates of between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent.
One-fifth of the total number of unemployed persons in Northern Ireland are under the age of 20. Over 6,000 school leavers have never yet had a job. A further 6,000 people are temporarily out of the dole queues through participating in the youth opportunities programme.
The situation in Northern Ireland has never been so serious. We have initiated this debate to ask the Government exactly what they intend to do to alleviate the intolerable burden that they have placed on the people of the Province.
Last week's Budget offered no hope for the people of Northern Ireland. It will only drag Northern Ireland further into the deep pit of recession. The low state of the economy there will mean that the many deflationary tendencies in that ill-considered Financial Statement will act with full force. More factories will close; more jobs will be lost for good; and the entire Province will become a permanent economic backwater, with all the grave consequences that are bound to follow from such a situation.
Before I outline our specific objections to the operation of the Govenment's economic policies in Northern Ireland I should say something about the nature of the economic structure and industrial base of the Province. If we go back to the late 'fifties or, indeed, to the period immediately after the Second World War, we find that it is quite clear from the figures of people in employment that the traditional pillars of the Northern Ireland economy have been long in decline. The shipbuilding, textile and linen industries within the manufacturing sector have consistently employed fewer and fewer people each year. The same is true of the agriculture sector. Whilst that is still by far the biggest factor in the economics of Northern Ireland it is clear that that sector, too, has been in decline.
The average rate of unemployment in the Province has always exceeded that for the rest of the United Kingdom. We fully recognise that even when unemployment was relatively low on the mainland the percentage for Northern Ireland was sometimes one-third as high again, and even, on occasion, double what it was over here. For well over half a century Northern Ireland has displayed all the characteristics of a less prosperous, peripheral economic region. Average weekly earnings and labour force activity rates have, on the whole, been lower, whereas net emigration and infant mortality rates have been higher than those elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The prevalence of low incomes and dependence on supplementary benefits is substantially higher in Northern Ireland than it is in other United Kingdom regions. A further important dimension of economic and social life in the Province is the havoc and destruction wrought by almost 12 years of civil unrest. We recognise that this has meant that much-needed resources have had to be diverted to areas that do not contribute directly to economic and social developments.
In addition to these factors, the Northern Ireland economy is particularly susceptible to volatile international markets, not least to the state of the oil market—for the Province is largely dependent on imported oil for electricity generation.
I have made those observations because I want the Government to be absolutely clear about the fact that we acknowledge that there are no easy solutions to the Province's economic problems. We recognise now, as we

did when in Government, that geographical dependence on declining industries has made it especially difficult to deal with the seemingly intractable problems of the Northern Irish economy.
The Opposition understand the difficulties faced by the Government. Consequently, we find the application of present Government policies to the Province difficult to explain and impossible to defend. The harsh evidence of the unemployment figures and the factory closures is quite enough to tell us that the Government's economic policies are irrelevant to the needs of Northern Ireland. We have repeatedly stressed this over the past 19 months, but to no avail. That is why, today, we challenge the Government on the question of the complete lack of a logical and consistent regional policy designed to tackle the dire needs of people of the Province.
The failure of monetarism and public spending cuts in Northern Ireland demonstrates the need for a particular economic strategy in the Province, but no such response has been forthcoming from the Government. Instead, we have had to listen to repeated statements by Ministers that Northern Ireland must share the burden of cuts with the rest of the United Kingdom. But the plain fact is that Northern Ireland's problems are unique within the United Kingdom in their intensity and severity.
The Province has special needs and special problems, most of which I have just outlined. To date, there is scant evidence that the Government have done anything to recognise these special needs in a practical sense. Conservative Members may shake their heads at that statement. They will tell me of the millions of pounds that have been made available for industrial regeneration, in the form of grants and loans. My answer to that is that the list of new factories—if, indeed, one could call it a list—is completely overshadowed by the lengthy catalogue of factory closures and redundancies in the Province.
Furthermore, I point out to those hon. Members who are unfamiliar with financing in Northern Ireland, that the vast majority of sums devoted to industrial help in the Province have been directly hived off from other planned public spending, particularly on transport, education, health, housing and the environment.
I should not be surprised if Ministers also invoke the age-old argument that Northern Ireland is already in a privileged position, since public spending there is 35 per cent. above what it is per head in the rest of the United Kingdom. To me, that has always been a very dubious argument, which I think the Northern Ireland Economic Council, in its report of January 1981, has slammed once and for all. That report stated that when all the special factors were taken into account the difference between per capita public spending in Northern Ireland and such spending in the rest of the United Kingdom was minimal. It concluded by saying:
The present level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland if fully justified to meet immediate needs. Further resources are required to help overcome our severe economic difficulties and allow the Province to catch up with social and economic conditions in Great Britain.
Northern Ireland needs levels of public expenditure to be maintained simply in order to stand still—but to stand still where?—20 years behind the rest of the United Kingdom in housing and welfare. It was not until 1975 that the line of public spending in Northern Ireland finally


crossed over that of one of the regions, which was Scotland. It equalled it in 1975 and finally went over in 1976.
We must make up the leeway in Northern Ireland. Therefore, any talk about spending per head of population being higher now should be offset against the time when not enough public expenditure was being incurred in Northern Ireland. One has only to consider the infrastructure of that region to see what I mean by that.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will claim that the Prime Minister's recent announcement of help for the energy sector in Northern Ireland is evidence that the Government care about the burden borne by the people there. However, we have yet to hear whether domestic as well as industrial comsumers are to benefit. More importantly, we have still to learn the source of that financial panacea. If the money is to be taken from other sectors of the Northern Ireland budget there will be no benefit.
In urging the Secretary of State to go to the Cabinet and fight for more funds because Northern Ireland is a special case, I remind him, first, that in 1977 the previous Government allotted an additional £100 million to Northern Ireland for a five-year programme of reducing industrial and commercial tariffs by 30 per cent. That explains why the commercial tariff is currently 7 per cent. above the rest of Great Britain. It also explains why the Prime Minister recently made her announcement, because the five-year programme is almost complete.
Secondly, in 1977 we made new money available. It is the only rational way of coping with the expensive disparity in energy costs, which can be such a heavy burden on industrialists and domestic consumers. In the review by the Department of Finance of the economic and social progress in Northern Ireland in April 1979, a passage on page 12 states that:
£26·3 million of the accrued deficits on revenue account of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service was written off and its capital indebtedness to the Government Loans Fund reduced by £250 million. A further sum of up to £100 million has been made available during the 5 years from 1977–78 to 1981–82 which has made it possible to reduce industrial and commercial tariffs by approximately 30 per cent.".
As the money that we made available is now due to end, the Prime Minister and the Government had to decide whether to continue our policy and to subsidise the Northern Ireland electricity service. If not, the gap would have widened quickly. The decision had nothing to do with the economy of Northern Ireland, although it is welcome. The decision had to be taken now because the tranche of money that we allowed for the five-year period is due to end.
In the Appropriation order debate last Monday I gave specific details of factory closures and redundancies to demonstrate the failure of the Government to bring anything other than industrial stagnation to Northern Ireland. I shall not waste the time of the House by repeating those figures and names, which are shown in the Official Report.
The effect of the Government's patent failure to develop a coherent economic approach to Northern Ireland will be further compounded by the budgetary measures announce last week for the whole of the United Kingdom. From the bastion of Tory support has come the most severe criticism. The CBI of Northern Ireland said of the Budget:

The proposals will probably result in higher unemployment because it is a deflationary Budget. Industry was already having to operate on a very tight budget and the higher transport costs could easily push them over the edge.
It was also forcefully argued that the whole deflationary effect of the Budget would probably offset the benefits of lower interest charges for most of industry. I hope that the words of the CBI will be taken to heart by the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues and that he will address his remarks to them. All the evidence suggests that industrial stagnation and unemployment are the inevitable consequences of monetarism and a non-existent economic strategy for Northern Ireland.
On a number of occasions Ministers have said that they were giving priority to the competitiveness of industry in Northern Ireland. That is a difficult position to reconcile with the large number of factory closures and redundancies. I suggest that such moneys as are currently directed to industry are being used to keep alive a vestige of economic activity against all the adverse market forces that the Government have created, such as high interest rates, adverse exchange rates and high national insurance surcharges, not to mention high transport costs.
It is not far from the truth to say that the Government are recklessly squandering all the economic achievements, not only of the previous Administration but of many of their predecessors. It has been difficult for some of us to watch the disappearance in two years of what has been painfully built up in Northern Ireland over the last 20 years.
I ask the Secretary of State to refer in his speech to the firms that are now in trouble in terms of cash flow and job prospects. On this occasion I shall not refer to the firms that have been closed, but I want to mention four others. There is the strange case of Euroweld. British Enkalon is a huge industrial firm in an area of Northern Ireland. The order books of Short Brothers are crammed to capacity, but it is suffering a lack of cash flow, which I understand is usual these days. If the right hon. Gentleman could scotch those rumours, that would be fair enough for me. Will he also refer to Courtaulds Campsi? The positons of those four firms are fresh in my mind and are connected with the economy of Northern Ireland. If any of them close or run into difficulties there will be a major jump in the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will brandish a copy of the report published yesterday by PA International—the first of its quarterly surveys of business prospects. No doubt he will point to the 24 per cent. overall increase in investment in Northern Ireland industry over the last year. However, we must look behind that figure to find the truth. The truth is that 45 per cent. of all firms in the survey expect to be employing fewer people in a year's time.
About 55 per cent. expect to invest less over the next 12 months. The problem with such surveys is that one large firm that carries out major re-equipment in one year in Northern Ireland can make nonsense of the figures. One only has to consider Dupont. I was pleased to read on the tapes before the debate about what is happening in that firm. If that is what happens when the Opposition have a debate on the economic affairs in Northern Ireland., I ask my Leader to give me one a week to see what would happen on a weekly basis. We used that trick ourselves.


The survey also states that overall results show that employment in existing firms may fall by 10 per cent. in the corning year. So much for additional investment. That will bring no new jobs for the people of Northern Ireland.
The only hope for the people in Northern Ireland is to be rid of the Government. However, failing that, in the short term I consider it essential that the Opposition should put to the House and to the Northern Ireland Ministers present their alternative approach to the Northern Ireland economy.
The Province is a special case. On individual occasions Northern Ireland Ministers have recognised many of the disadvantages faced by the people there. The last Administration also took note of those problems in a practical sense. It is our overriding concern that the people in that region should receive fair treatment. They are patently not getting that at the moment. That is why we strongly urge the Government to review the operation of their policies in Northern Ireland and to adopt with the utmost urgency a regional strategy designed to keep jobs and to attract foreign investment. We further call on the Government to revise the proposed public expenditure cuts for Northern Ireland over the next two years and to direct spending to create jobs in Northern Ireland, most notably in the construction industry.
Currently, 50 per cent. of the construction industry work force in Northern Ireland is on the dole, and that at a time when housing unfitness is three times the national average and yet more houses are falling into disrepair. It is incomprehensible that the Government are unwilling to match a willing work force with the large amount of work that needs to be done.
I ask the Government with all the persuasive powers at my command to look again at the recommendations of the 1976 Quigley report. The Belfast HMSO tells me that it is out of print, but if the Minister wishes to read it I can lend him my copy. I beg the Government to take careful note, too, of the recent Coopers and Lybrand report on the Northern Ireland economy. Both reports argue convincingly for coherent regional strategy, with direct State involvement in saving and creating jobs.
The Quigley report considered that the only hope for the Province, with its special problems, lay in maintaining the level of public expenditure with the State having a strong role, leading, subsidising and directly involving itself in industry. I was fortunate to have Dr. Quigley as a permanent secretary at the Department of Commerce to further endorse that approach. My right hon. Friends the Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and I were already convinced that the strategy provided a positive outlook for the Northern Ireland economy. It worked for three years under a Labour Administration. We were able to contain rising unemployment, to encourage foreign investors to set up factories and to attract investment to black spots by offering special incentives to blue chip—high quality and high stability—firms. Newry, Strabane and West Belfast all benefited.
Of course, we hear only of the successes. Much heartache, hard work and planning were put into projects that fell at the last hurdle. We thought on many occasions that we had sold Northern Ireland industrially, with its enhanced investment package, only to fail with pen poised over paper.
Terrorist activity was not the only deterrent to potential investors, many of whom had factories in other violent areas of the world. However, a number were deterred by political activities, such as the general strike in 1974. We have only to consider the employment figures after the strike to realise the damage done. I say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that we had the same difficulty in 1977. For nigh on five weeks I was prevented from travelling and contacting people throughout the world to the benefit of Northern Ireland, as I had to deal with the situation. Such activities do not help Northern Ireland's economy.
I again sympathise with the Secretary of State. Ministers and officials in the Northern Ireland Office must be suffering from similar political activities. I should be more understanding and sympathetic to the hon. Member for Antrim, North had he led 500 men up the hill brandishing oxy-acetylene torches, spanners and shovels, demanding work, instead of brandishing pieces of paper. That would have done more good.
I thank the President of the United States and the Senators involved for their recent messages. I hope that they can follow them up by telling Irish Americans who want to help not to send money but to use their tremendous influence in the board rooms to see that Northern Ireland is considered when firms are looking abroad for factory sites. That is the best way that they can help. Money only ends up in dubious hands.
The evidence of how the Labour Administration were succeeding lies in the report of 1979, "Economic and social progress in Northern Ireland", which showed that we had made a sustained effort to exploit all available opportunities. We were beginning to advance in our objectives of economic growth, high employment and social progress. We recognised that manpower was the Province's main natural resource. It has hardly any coal, oil, gas or other basic minerals. We fully accepted that Northern Ireland was dependent on public expenditure to stimulate capital investment and to create and maintain employment. That is why we were able to make some headway. If the Government would only acknowledge those truths they could begin to tackle the onerous problems.
I shall not detain the House for much longer by going over past ground. I simply state that there is an alternative to the Government's appalling acceptance, in their expenditure plans for Northern Ireland, that unemployment will continue to rise significantly over the next two years. One can take no comfort from such brutal indifference. I should not have allowed such a statement to be made when I was a Minister. At paragraph 14, on page 161 of the Government's expenditure plans, they state:
For the purpose of social security expenditure projections it has been assumed that unemployment in Northern Ireland will grow at the same rate as assumed for Great Britain … and that the average figures of unemployed (excluding school-leavers) would be 80,000 in 1980–81; 108,000 in 1981–82; and 116,000 in subsequent years. The comparable assumptions for school-leavers, adult students and temporarily stopped are 10,800 in 1980–81 and 12,200 in 1981–82 and subsequent years.
Instead of trying to tackle the problem the Government are budgeting for an increase in unemployment over the Great Britain figure of 4 million to a figure that would equate, for Northern Ireland, to over 5 million, as I have said.


I never believed that unemployment in my constituency would reach 10 per cent. I did not believe that any Government would be incompetent enough to produce such figures. The figures make me shudder. I cannot imagine what would happen in my constituency if unemployment rose to 25 per cent.
The Opposition do not accept that there is no other option for Northern Ireland. The 100,000 unemployed, the 24,000 on short-time working, and the 6,149 school-leavers who have never had a job would agree. We challenge the Government to produce a positive strategy for Northern Ireland's economy that will protect jobs, save valuable plant and factories and provide incentives for foreign investors. Most important of all, they should use the tool of public expenditure generally to create jobs.
There is still time to save the Northern Ireland economy—but time is running short. That is why we ask the Secretary of State to explain his position and to tell us why he continues to apply patently inadequate economic measures to the greater detriment of all in Northern Ireland. There is an alternative to industrial stagnation. It is outlined in the Quigley and Coopers and Lybrand reports. Above all, it is there for posterity, in the record of our Administration, which brought some comfort to the people of Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I am glad of the opportunity to debate the economic affairs of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that this was a unique occasion. It is certainly welcome. Too often the House directs its attention only to matters connected with security, terrorism, violence or political division in the Province. Seldom do we have the opportunity to discuss matters that closely affect people in Northern Ireland.
In debates about the political future in Northern Ireland it is necessary to start by restating the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so unless a majority of people in Northern Ireland decide otherwise. It seems to me just as necessary to do that in an economic debate because, with all its special and distinctive problems—the right hon. Gentleman referred to one or two—the main factors influencing the economic health of Northern Ireland are just the same as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman implied, predictably, that the major thing that was wrong was the Government's policy. He knows perfectly well that Northern Ireland has its own problems. He mentioned some of them. One he left out. He knows that we are in the middle of a world recession, and that any Government would have been confronted with the same very difficult problems as those that we face today. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was very simple, and very predictable. It was to the effect that the Government's policies, far from tending to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy, are weakening it. He made a plea for a return, in this part of the United Kingdom at any rate, to the illusion that there is no situation that cannot be made better by ever-increasing handouts of taxpayers' money. We have heard those arguments so often from the Opposition that it was no surprise to hear them again today.
In response to what the right hon. Gentleman said, I wish to do two things. First, I wish to show that the central

thrust of Government economic policy, far from being detrimental to the long-term interests of Northern Ireland, is vital to any soundly based revival there or anywhere else. Secondly, I wish to show that, consistent with this policy, we have nevertheless been able to introduce a series of distinctive initiatives, well directed to the specific problems of the Province.
If the policies of the right hon. Gentleman's party were followed, inflation would not be brought down and taxation would be very much higher. Great Britain is a major market for the products of Northern Ireland, and it is inevitably also a major source of new industrial investment. A national economy weakened by inflation and crippled by increased taxation would do nothing for the marketing prospects of Northern Ireland firms, and the likelihood that there would be successful companies in Great Britain, ready to expand and looking to Northern Ireland for new productive capacity, would disappear. Nor would Northern Ireland firms themselves be exempt from the consequences, in rates of taxation and inflation, of following the policies of the Labour Party. By printing and spending more and more money, we would be perpetuating a fiction that the nation can afford a steadily improving life style within a declining performance. The people of Northern Ireland are nothing if not realists. They know that it is just as much in their interests as in anybody else's that the trend towards a disastrous decline should be reversed, even if some of the measures are far from comfortable.
Inevitably, the single indicator that attracts the most notice, and to which the the right hon. Gentleman referred at some length, is that which contains the unemployment figures. For many years, under Governments of whatever complexion, unemployment in Northern Ireland, sadly, has been higher than in any other region of the United Kingdom. Moreover, it has risen or fallen broadly in line with movements elsewhere. That is what it is doing today, and that explains why the paper to which the right hon. Gentleman referred makes the same assumptions for budgeting purposes on the social security budget as are made for the rest of the United Kingdom. It has, of course, led to the deeply distressing figure, at the last count, of 99,849 people being unemployed. That figure can give nobody any pleasure. It is evidence of a waste of human resources and of a great deal of social unhappiness. 'The consequences for the future of Northern Ireland in those spheres, and possibly in the security sphere as well, worry us all very much indeed.
We take the view that it is the Government's business to seek to promote and to protect as much employment as possible. But this must be done within the context of a viable economy. We know that a fiction of "economic activity" can be produced by making work. The trouble with jobs of that kind is that they have no permanence. Unless money is continually put into them, year after year, they disappear, and the money which could have been used to help establish new and profitable activities disappears as well.
As I have said, the people of Northern Ireland are realists. They recognise that Northern Ireland needs sound and lasting jobs, not illusory and temporary ones. The right hon. Gentleman today, and in the earlier debate on the Appropriation order, gave a long list of firms in Northern Ireland which have closed down or experienced


heavy redundancies. He asked particularly about four firms which have not closed down but which he fears may be in difficulty.
I must first reassure the right hon. Gentleman about Short Brothers. That firm has orders which will keep it going very well for at least two years and, one hopes, for longer. Like other firms, it sometimes has problems with cash, but we are looking into that. The firm's productive record is improving and its order book is good. We all hope very much that it will not go on costing the taxpayer money indefinitely.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Enkalon and Courtaulds. Those firms are in difficulties, but we are in close touch with them and I hope that, through the system of grants and investment incentives of all kinds, we shall be able to help them, if not to maintain their full level of employment at least to continue in operation and, one hopes, to build up in the future.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned Euroweld. I shall not spend much time on the subject of that firm, as it is in the hands of the receivers. The receivers are now negotiating for, one hopes, a purchase. I think that it would be wiser if I left the matter there. We all hope that that firm, which has recently re-equipped itself, will be able to continue making its products and selling them abroad.
What the Government are seeking to do, and must seek to do, is to create conditions in Northern Ireland in which the right sort of firm, with the right sort of products and with the right attitude to manufacturing and marketing, will be able to grow without carrying on its back a terrible incubus of Government taxation and regulation. We are directing our efforts towards helping Northern Ireland firms to get those things right.
I shall describe to the House a few of the things that we are doing, starting at the smaller end of the scale. Under the Northern Ireland market research grant scheme, which we introduced in September 1979, more than 100 firms have been assisted to carry out market surveys in 50 countries. The products of 170 Northern Ireland companies have been introduced at special trade promotions. During the past six weeks, the department of commerce has sponsored Northern Ireland stands at five major industrial trade exhibitions.
On the whole, these things benefit smaller businesses. That is right, because we recognise that special benefits flow from the promotion of small businesses, both through initial development and through expansion. Many of them have the inestimable benefit of deep local roots, and they provide new jobs at a comparatively low cost in terms of public support. In this sphere, I must mention the activities of the Local Enterprise Development Unit—LEDU—which has been doing a remarkable job and to which I pay tribute. In 1980 the unit promoted 1,160 jobs, almost entirely in small manufacturing businesses. I am happy to think, despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the package of taxation and other measures for the support of small businesses announced in his Budget by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be particularly welcome in, and relevant to, Northern Ireland.
We also attract, and wish to attract, investment from larger companies. The big overseas investment can bring benefits to the local and national economy which are of

enormous value. In that context, I am glad to be able to confirm what the right hon. Gentleman mentioned and other hon. Members may have seen on the tapes, namely that the Dupont Corporation is to introduce a new product, Hypalon, at its major site at Maydown, in Londonderry. Dupont has provided very valuable employment in the Londonderry area for the past 20 years, and the investment announced today, which will be in excess of £40 million, is a demonstration of the company's continuing commitment to Northern Ireland as a manufacturing location throughout the 1980s and, I hope, beyond.
In addition to improving employment prospects for the firm itself, this investment will create several hundred jobs in the construction industry over the next two years. When completed, the plant will provide 150 good quality production jobs, thus preserving employment at the Maydown site.
Other new industries are gearing themselves up for full production. There is, for example, the Hyster Company, at Craigavon, which will be bringing on stream probably the most sophisticated and advanced factory in the world for the production of fork-lift trucks. The firm is confident of its ability to face Japanese and any other competition throughout the world.
There is the highly advanced Lear Fan project, which had a successful flight on New Year's Day. Market prospects for this fuel-efficient business aircraft are now thought to be even better than when the project was announced last year, and already there are encouraging signs of spin-off investment being attracted to Northern Ireland.
Then there are the long-established companies which are doing excellent business in spite of all the present difficulties—for example, the Hughes Tool Company, at Castlereagh, which was visited by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during her time in Belfast and which reported to her its best performance ever.
A measure of our hope for the future is the number of companies paying their first visits to consider Northern Ireland as a possible location. This number increased from 55 in 1979 to 70 in 1980. I hope very much that it will be even higher this year.
I spoke earlier about not neglecting our existing industries. One of the most important industries in Northern Ireland is agriculture. The steady fall in farm incomes in Northern Ireland has been progressive and disturbing. I have, therefore, been considering how, consistent with our European Community and other obligations, we might seek to alleviate this difficult situation. I have no announcement to make this afternoon, because my consideration of the matter is not quite complete, but I can confirm that I have arranged to meet representatives of the Ulster Farmers Union next week to discuss my conclusions with them.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman has listed those industries which he hopes will work wonders in Northern Ireland. However, the best message that he can convey to the Ulster people, who are burdened with Government expenditure cuts and other measures, is an assurance that the unemployment level will not go beyond 100,000. He should also make it clear that the present disgraceful position, where two out of three school leavers are on the dole, will soon end.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I cannot give that assurance. I am seeking to explain


the thrust of Government policy. In the United Kingdom as a whole and in Northern Ireland in particular, we are trying to encourage the right kind of activity, which will enable this country to prosper. That does not mean pouring out masses of taxpayers' money to employ people for a year or two in order to make the figures look better. We want to establish good and viable jobs in profitable industries, which will not require so much Government money and which, therefore, will make that money available for all the other social improvements which the hon. Gentleman constantly presses on me.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I wish the right hon. Gentleman success in his forthcoming talks with the Ulster Farmers Union. Will he have second thoughts about abolishing the agricultural trust, beacause that presents exactly the same opportunity for success in agriculture as the local enterprise development unit has done in other areas?

Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back he will recall that only the other day we passed the order abolishing the trust. Therefore, I am afraid that he is too late. My discussions with the UFU will take place next week, and I intend to put some propositions forward at that time.
Let me point the way forward. In the face of all the difficulties in Northern Ireland I suggest that the Government and the people of Northern Ireland, if they act together, can tackle those difficulties realistically and with ultimate and lasting success.

Mr. Kilfedder: When?

Mr. Atkins: The Government have their part to play. As the House knows, they are seeking to play it. I should like to mention one particularly important development of Government policy in that regard. One of the most serious obstacles to the development of productive investment is the high cost of electricity, which derives from a heavy dependence upon oil-fired power stations within an isolated system.
When in power, the Labour Party took a useful first step in writing off debt and making a subsidy available over five years. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it was £20 million a year for five years. At the time, it was aimed at reducing industrial tariffs. Unfortunately, in the intervening years we have seen that such a fixed sum of money does not work, because it is not enough. In fact, it is nothing like enough. During the years in which I have been responsible for Northern Ireland affairs it has had to be increased. Even if that subsidy were not coming to an end at the end of next year we would still have to look at the problem to see what ought to be done, because a fixed sum of money, even £20 million, does not give reasonable stability. Industrial consumers, in particular, need to look further ahead than just a year or two to obtain the kind of assurance about future supplies and costs that every industrialist looks for.
The significance of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during her visit to Northern Ireland last week is not just that it commits us to bringing tariffs—domestic as well as industrial—more closely into line with tariffs in England and Wales, but that it accepts the obligation to keep them there. I hope that that will give assurance and relief to the whole Northern Ireland community.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the extra money that is to be found for the electricity undertaking in order to bring its prices more closely into line will not be taken out of any other Northern Ireland programmes? Will it be extra money from central Government, or will it be taken off other essential Northern Ireland services?

Mr. Atkins: The details of precisely how this scheme will work will be settled within a few days. They must be, because my right hon. Friend also said that the tariff increases due on 1 April would be subject to review. Within a few days I shall be able to give the House all the details of how the scheme will work. I note what the hon. Gentleman and many others have said on the subject.
We shall not be able to move forward without the concerted co-operation of Government and people working together. We can do a certain amount, but people can do a lot more. The people of Northern Ireland do a lot more, because, contrary to the impression that many people get from the newspapers, the Northern Ireland people work together. They are enterprising and hardworking. The most effective confirmation of that, as hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies know, comes from firms which have invested there.
It seems ironic that at the moment it is almost easier to talk to an American business man 3,000 or 4,000 miles away about investment opportunities in Northern Ireland than it is to talk to business men in many parts of Great Britain. Unfortunately, the explanation is simple. Day after day, and night after night, the television screens and newspaper columns in Great Britain present a picture of Northern Ireland which is almost wholly depressing, unstable and violent. As we all know, it is totally unrepresentative. Because of that, people are reluctant to take up investment opportunities in Northern Ireland—not just in the industrial sector but in the commercial sector as well—which they might think attractive in another part of the world.
I want to make a head-on attack on that problem, but it is not something that I can do alone or which the Government can do by themselves. It needs the backing of the whole Northern Ireland community. It needs evidence that however divided people may be on some issues—on political matters and others—they are united in wanting to protect and create employment and in seeking to give potential investors the reassurances which they need about the community's attitudes to them.
When Sir Philip Foreman spoke at a dinner at which the Prime Minister was present a fortnight ago he struck exactly the right note. He said that the people of Northern Ireland must show that they stand together to promote Northern Ireland's interests. I agree with him, and I intend to take up that approach in discussions with him, with Mr. Jim McCusker, of the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and with others over the next few weeks. That is something that I wish to develop over the coming months.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In furthering this effort to bring the correct balance and the truth to the point of view held in Great Britain about the real circumstances of Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman consider how he can make more use of the contribution of individual hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies? It often seems ironical that with agencies


working to that end in Great Britain the services of my colleagues and myself, which would be readily available for the purpose, are so little used.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer of help, which includes the help of his colleagues beside him. I am anxious to use any instrument, if I may so describe the right hon. Gentleman, to further this cause. I shall take particular note of what he says.
In none of what I have said have I sought to minimise the magnitude of the problems or the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland. However, we shall do no service to anybody in Northern Ireland by sending forward from this Chamber only a message of total gloom. However difficult the short-term situation may be—and it is difficult—it must be to the ultimate advantage of Northern Ireland to restore the economic health of the whole nation. The Province cannot be a vigorous limb on an ailing body. As I have sought to show, in the midst of all the difficulties there are definite signs of hope. I have referred to some of them.
We are embarked on no quick or flashy transformation but on a long and at times painful struggle towards real efficiency, real competitiveness and real profitability. It is not an easy policy, nor in its early stages is it a popular one. No real future for Northern Ireland or for any other part of the United Kingdom can be built upon a programme of inflated public expenditure, borrowing and taxing for today's consumption rather than for tomorrow's prosperity. We believe in what we are doing, and we shall stick to it.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The official Opposition are to be commended on the choice of title—the economic problems of Northern Ireland—for the subject of this Supply day debate.
As the Secretary of State said, we have had countless debates on what has been called the Northern Ireland problem, but they have been futile because Northern Ireland is not itself a problem; still less is it a problem to which a solution has to be found. Northern Ireland is a region of the United Kingdom with problems similar to those of other regions in the Kingdom. During the past few days we have debated those other regions and their problems, usually on the initiative of Her Majesty's Opposition. Today's debate takes place in that context, and it is the proper context.
This is a United Kingdom debate, unlike the Northern Ireland field days, almost as frequently as every quarter, when we debate Northern Ireland Appropriation orders. This is not a benefit day for Northern Ireland Members alone. It is a day when Parliament has chosen to demonstrate its concern for the Northern Ireland region of the United Kingdom. For that reason I hope that we shall hear speeches from those representing constituencies outside Northern Ireland.
It is no accident that the correct formula and setting has been produced by Her Majesty's Opposition, for it was they, when in Government from 1974 to 1979, who made steady progress in restoring stability to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has shown how that is perhaps the most basic requirement of all. If I were asked to attribute the main share of the credit I should without hesitation

name the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who opened the debate so effectively. We are delighted to have with us the hon. Member for Liverpool Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), who made such a valuable contribution to Northern Ireland, especially to its agriculture.
Those right hon. and hon. Members understood the overpowering need for a coherent programme that would provide for a firm and consistent attitude to criminal violence, the avoidance of political instability and a settled approach to the economy. It is my hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will seize the opportunity to join in identifying the junctions where we have diverted from that settled course.
One such junction was August 1979, when kites were flown and rumours began to circulate that the new Conservative Government were about to take a political initiative. That well-worn phrase warmed the hearts of every terrorist and opportunist in the land. There followed a year of speculation about deals, compromises, solutions and structures. In the end there was the predicted disillusionment and disappointment.
As if that were not enough, in July 1980, all expenditure which applied to and in Northern Ireland alone was frozen. It is difficult to imagine a more damaging economic and business upset. Even now we have not recovered fully from the effects of the so-called reallocation which came at the end of the freeze. I hope that for the remaining lifetime of this Parliament we shall be spared both political initiatives and financial disruption.
Alphabetically and in order of importance agriculture is Northern Ireland's first industry. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that he is finalising his response to the proposals of the Ulster Farmers Union. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met representatives of the union those representatives argued for strengthening beef support and stressed the vital need for a substantial increase in the variable premium? I shall take the liberty of reinforcing the demands that were properly made by the representatives of the union on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman implied that his mind was not quite made up, so, some stiffening of his resolution can do no harm.
In the intensive sector the situation is rapidly worsening. We have never accepted the EEC Commission's refusal to continue the feed price allowances and something like the Italian agreement for Northern Ireland. It is a refusal based on the excuse that the Italian derogation will be phased out. It is a professed EEC objective which, like many others, will never be achieved if Italy and France choose to ignore the commandment.
My simple demand is that the cumbersome and discriminatory regulations must be altered drastically to enable Northern Ireland's grain traders to provide their customers with feeding stuffs at prices that they can afford. If they are not, the customers and the grain traders will be wiped out.
As milk prices are fully under the Government's control the case for milk aid, so effectively made by the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) on 9 March, is unanswerable. The Government and the EEC must recognise the twin problems of remoteness and the low percentage of liquid milk consumption in Northern


Ireland. Either problem qualifies Northern Ireland dairy producers as a special case. Together they constitute a formidable challenge that can no longer be ignored. In their battle with their Treasury colleagues and with their EEC overlords, I hope that Northern Ireland Ministers will find their arms strengthened by a reminder that when milk aid was paid in 1978–79 and in 1979–80 the EEC authorisation was not fully used. It is estimated that there is cover left for about £3·5 million under that authority. That is a tidy sum to be going on with before the end of the current financial year.
When the union leaders met those Ministers on 15 March they appear to have been promised action in terms of days rather than months. That was a variation of a promise that had been made in this House on another famous occasion. The promise was made more than two months ago. I am glad that the close season has ended. However, I hope that we are not witnessing a delaying tactic that seeks to avoid further spending in the current financial year. A refusal to give the promised help for 1980–81 would be totally unacceptable, because provision must be made separately for 1981–82. Therefore, after the meeting between the Secretary of State and representatives of the Ulster Farmers Union I shall look forward to hearing some good news.
I turn to the industrial sector. I should like to give the Secretary of State and the Minister of State an opportunity to clarify the position about individual undertakings. Although I appreciate what the Secretary of State said about the delicacy of the Euroweld position, I should like to know whether, after much delay and misunderstanding, the unions and the receiver have reached an agreement. If so, I should like to ask a slightly less delicate question. Are the Minister and the Department of Commerce willing to give some aid to the company, perhaps by making available outstanding grants, which would enable the reorganised company to renew its contract or to negotiate a new contract with the Calor/Kosangas company? The contract could then be retained in the United Kingdom and would not go elsewhere.
Both Front Bench spokesmen paid tribute to Short Brothers. I wholeheartedly join them in that tribute. I understand that Short Brothers is in competition with British Aerospace for a refurbishing contract for five Canberra aircraft. The contract is worth about £7 million. More importantly, it will secure employment for up to 100 people at Shorts and perhaps for a large number of small subsidiaries in Belfast. It cannot be contested that Short Brothers has the design facilities for the contract. It must be the most natural company to undertake the work. If the contract were granted, it would give the lie to the idea that Shorts is no longer to be included in defence programmes. I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance on that point. I understand that existing Ministry of Defence work is reaching its final stages at Short Brothers; hence the vital importance of obtaining the new contract.
I turn to the subject of Harland and Wolff. What progress has been made by the Minister on exploring the possibility of making a site available at the Belfast shipyard to John Rinnie Ltd., which manufactures semi-submersible oil rigs? I understand that each rig costs approximately £40 million, would provide about 250 new jobs, and would consolidate another 150. I appreciate that the company is new, and perhaps untried, but as about 50 such oil rigs are ordered each year throughout the world

it is important to pursue negotiations with the company and to ensure close co-operation and co-ordination between the company and Harland and Wolff.
In recent days, my attention has been drawn to the fact that the British Steel Corporation exports to firms in the Irish Republic and takes punts at the equivalent of sterling value. It appears that it is thereby giving a 25 per cent. discount on condition that the firms in the Republic do not export raw materials or products to any part of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point. Evidence exists that certain firms in the Republic are breaking, or circumventing that condition and are tendering in Northern Ireland, where they can sell steep at a cheaper price than that at which Northern Ireland firms can purchase. I need hardly say that that action is disastrous for some small firms in Northern Ireland. If it continues, many of them will be put out of business. Will the Government give an assurance that they will take tough and effective action to prevent such cheating? 
I turn to the distress experienced in the man-made fibre industry. There appear to be hopes of salvaging something from Courtaulds and of retaining a significant element of the British Enkalon plant in Antrim. We have been greatly encouraged today by the Secretary of State's remarks. We hope that he and his colleague will give sympathetic consideration to the sensible proposals that are being submitted—after careful consideration—by the two companies concerned.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield drew attention to the special difficulties of the construction industry in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team are well aware of them. May I ask Treasury Ministers—in their absence—to remember that when they discuss and plan a general reduction in capital expenditure they not only curtail Northern Ireland's construction industry but are in danger of wiping it out? 
I turn to the all-important question of energy costs. I trust that the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten)—has had time to study the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and will feel that he was a little unfair when he suggested in the Appropriation order debate that my hon. Friend had prepared his speech before the Prime Minister's welcome announcement on electricity costs. A few minutes later, the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler)—regretted that hon. Members had spent so much time
searching out detail instead of acknowledging the importance and firmness of the Prime Minister's commitment."—[Official Report, 9 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 728]
Within an hour of the Prime Minister's speech at Stormont I said, in a television interview, that the concession was the greatest achievement since the granting of equal representation in 1977. I stand by that statement. We cannot be accused of churlishness when we proceed from that point to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh did, how it will be implemented. Presumably the Secretary of State and his colleagues are addressing their minds to that question. Indeed, the Secretary of State has given some indication of the complexities involved.
In its report published yesterday, the Economic Council for Northern Ireland stated:
While the Prime Minister's commitment to bring electricity tariffs in Northern Ireland more closely into line with those in England and Wales appears to be a welcome development the Economic Council has two reservations about the proposal. First,


to the extent that the subsidy is financed from a reallocation within the existing Northern Ireland budget, it will bring no net advantage to the region as a whole. Second, by meeting the commitment through a Government subsidy a degree of uncertainty will always remain.
That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh. The report then used the following key phrase:
This could be avoided in large measure if the commitment was to be affected through financial integration of the electricity industries in Northern Ireland and Great Britain,
In saying yesterday what my hon. Friend said on 9 March about the implementation of the scheme, neither the Northern Ireland Economic Council nor my hon. Friend was being churlish.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council made that same statement exactly three years ago. As my hon. Friend said, it has been gathering dust somewhere in the files on the shelves of the Department of Commerce. We are both on strong ground. We have both been saying this for years, month in month out, in the House and outside. Today, together, we are saying that while talk of absolute "postalisation" of energy costs may be an oversimplification, we are convinced that there must be financial, and as far as possible physical, integration of energy. Bringing those costs more closely into line and keeping them there—to use the Prime Minister's own words—would be the greatest single contribution that the Treasury could make to the well-being of all the people of Northern Ireland.
For a text for a conclusion I return to Hansard of 9 March 1981, at column 728, where the Minister of State is reported as saying that he had "looked for greater enthusiasm" for the Prime Minister's announcement on electricity costs. Perhaps he is correct, because in Northern Ireland much of the publicity surrounding the Prime Minister's visit tended to concentrate on less positive aspects.
Wiser heads in Northern Ireland and elsewhere did not miss the message conveyed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—that the Government, despite their many other distractions and commitments, were determined that Northern Ireland should be placed on an equal footing with the rest of the United Kingdom. The clear message delivered by the Prime Minister that evening in Stormont was that the political, economic and financial links would be greatly strengthened. I agree with what the Secretary of State said. It is our task to encourage industry to build on the base which we trust will be provided by the Government. It is our task to persuade Ulstermen to use that native quality of initiative and determination in taking advantage, for example, of the schemes for small industries. Perhaps we can look further afield and, by demonstrating our dependability, make Northern Ireland an attractive place in which to invest and in which to establish new industries.
I said at the beginning that Governments had a duty to understand the relationship between political stability and economic progress. But an even heavier duty rests on all who live in Northern Ireland to ensure that the presented picture of our Province is one of a settled community which, having survived the very worst that terrorism could do for 10 long years, will not itself throw away the fruits of all the sacrifices of those years.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Thanks are due to the official Opposition for providing time for this debate on the economic problems of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) made an effective and unanswerable case. I say "unanswerable" because I listened with patience to the Secretary of State and heard no answer to his case. I expected to hear a message of hope from the Secretary of State but I did not hear much that would bring joy to the breasts of Ulster people—certainly not to the 100,000, including two out of three school leavers, who are out of work.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for giving way so early in his speech. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) spoke of an alternative approach to that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) criticised. But has the hon. Gentleman any idea, from what was said by the right hon. Member for Mansfield, what that alternative approach is?

Mr. Kilfedder: I gave way out of the kindness of my heart. Obviously, I should not have done so, because I have spoken in several debates on these questions. Indeed, I spoke only last week on the appropriation order. Those hon. Members who take part in these debates have made out cases, and we are still waiting for an answer. I know what the Opposition have stated and what they would like to do. I thought that the right hon. Member for Mansfield made it perfectly clear this afternoon.
It is not often that I turn back many years, but I should like to turn back to 1932, when the outdoor relief of Belfast families was reduced from 12s per week to 9s. The starving and ill-clad thousands there reacted in the only way they knew. They tore up the cobblestones from the streets with their bare hands and attacked the symbols of Government and authority. They did so because, after years of near-starvation, they suddenly found that the Government were treating their piteous condition with contempt.
That grim situation was repeated in other parts of the United Kingdom in those sad years, when unemployment reached an unprecedented level and hardship was terrible. But what happened here at Westminster? There was learned talk about interest rates, high prices, low demand, balance of payments, and the need for the Government to live within their income. That is the argument that we hear today. Thank God, the people are not starving and are certainly not in that situation today. None the less, to be unable to get work is an affront to human dignity and, psychologically, a terrible blow to any man or woman who wants work.
It is piteous that young people, leaving school full of hope and expecting to be able to achieve great things, find that the dole queue is all that the future holds for them. That is why I do not believe that the Secretary of State answered the case made out by the right hon. Member for Mansfield.
The people of Northern Ireland are looking for a message from the Government that their present plight will end, and that it will end shortly. That is why I asked the Secretary of State to give an assurance that the level of unemployment would not go beyond 100,000. I did not expect him to say that it would stop at 100,000—it might


go to 110,000—but I should like him at least to say that his policies will quickly bring some upturn in the economy of Northern Ireland and an end to the despondent feeling there.
Great anger has been expressed—rightly so—at the figure of 2½ million unemployed in Great Britain. Dire warnings have been sounded by many hon. Members about what would happen if that figure, as some fear, were to reach 3½ million. But we in Northern Ireland have 100,000 unemployed, which is the equivalent, on a population basis, of just over 4 million people unemployed in Great Britain. That is a vast army of unemployed in a region which has been savaged by the psychopathic killers of the Provisional IRA, whose activities simply add to the already terrible conditions in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps people would be able to bear their present burden more easily if they did not have to face terrorism. The terrorists are doing their best to destroy the places of work of ordinary workers. That must make it difficult for everyone concerned, including the Government.
But I am not speaking only of men and women who have no work. I am speaking also of economic devastation, which I think everyone accepts is likely to condemn Ulster and its people to life in an industrial wasteland unless the Government change their policies. All the evidence of the last year or so is that businesses are closing down. One Belfast newspaper says that the worst is still to come in the textile industry.
The Government give a catalogue of what they hope will happen, but those who are living in Northern Ireland, and others who are interested in Northern Ireland, know that the position will get worse. It is no comfort to the Ulster people to have from the Government this catalogue of more jobs in some distant future, when no date is given.
Two weeks ago when the Prime Minister announced to the House that she was making an unexpected visit to Northern Ireland I assumed that she would carry with her a bundle of solid and specific proposals which would help to save the situation in Northern Ireland. Her only concrete offer was on electricity. I am grateful for that offer, but it did not come out of the blue or out of the goodness of the Government's heart. I have been demanding it for many years, as have other hon. Members.
I was surprised that the right hon. Lady could not be specific about the proposals. The Government still cannot be specific about where the money will come from. The right hon. Lady went, perhaps at the behest of the official Unionist Party, to block the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and she covered her proposals by saying that she would be bringing an economic package. That package was the proposal about electricity. If it had been thought out properly she would have been able to give the details at the time. However, I am grateful for the proposal. It is only an attempt to bring some justice to Northern Ireland. Justice has been demanded for many matters, not just for electricity.
It is a pity that the Prime Minister was not properly briefed about the economic and social differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Most of her officials, perhaps all of them, have no direct experience of the hardship of life in that part of the United Kingdom. They could read a number of reports, including the report by Professor Isles in the late 1940s, the Wilson report in the 1960s and the Quigley report in the mid-1970s, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mansfield. All those reports

and many other publications have spelt out the facts again and again for the Government and for their officials, if the latter cared to read the reports.
To listen to some Ministers, one would imagine that facts were an invention of the Devil. It is not a question of reinterpreting the figures in a new or more relevant way. For some Ministers it seems to be a point of principle—if not of honour—to misinterpret the most obvious statistics and to turn reality on its head.
Without wanting to bore the House, I must give a few indisputable statistics. The cost of living in Ulster is higher than in any other region of the United Kingdom. Average retail prices are 6 per cent. above the United Kingdom average. The cost of fuel, transport and food is significantly above the cost in other regions, and the family income needed in Northern Ireland to sustain a given standard of living is greater than that for any other region. What a family in Scotland can buy for £4,500 a year costs an Ulster family over £5,000 a year. What about parity for the people of Northern Ireland? They pay the same taxes, so why should they pay more for food? Why should the cost of living be greater in the Province than in the rest of the United Kingdom?
As for the quality of life, we have the worst housing in the United Kingdom, the highest unemployment, the highest rates of sickness and the largest number on family income supplement. As I said in the debate last week, the Government countenance the extraordinary fact that 50 per cent. of the workers in the building industry are out of work at a time when there is a desperate need for houses, particularly for young people who wish to set up homes of their own. That is utter nonsense.
If the Government are sincere in their boast that all parts of the country are equal, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be treated equally. That has long been accepted in social security terms, ever since the 1938 reinsurance agreement. However, to treat Northern Ireland on a par with the rest of Great Britain in national economic policy means that the social and industrial conditions in the Province must be brought up to the United Kingdom average. If that does not happen, almost every national policy—wage restraint, cash limits, interest rates and expenditure cuts—will have more rigorous consequences in Ulster than in other regions.
For example, changes in public expenditure have a direct bearing on Northern Ireland. Expenditure cuts mean a considerable loss of jobs with no compensatory increase in employment in the private sector. Public sector employment is a stimulus to economic activity and not the drain on financial resources which it may be in other regions. That is why I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider public expenditure cuts in Northern Ireland and to consider the lesson of experience that public expenditure means that many people are usefully employed.
Finally, a national policy which does not have as one of its aims the equalisation of the quality of life among the different regions is not a national policy. It is a sectional policy intended to serve sectional interests. Any application of such a policy converts the two nations theory into two nations in practice. That is what has happened—that Northern Ireland is separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a poor relative that is just about accepted but none the less allowed to suffer a lower standard than Great Britain.
An obsession with policy which elevates control of the money supply to a religious sacrament eliminates any possibility of a regional policy. Regional policies are unthinkable in such circumstances because competing economic strategies lead to internal conflict. As long as the self-righteous proconsuls of the Chicago school of laissez-faire political economics hold sway over the Government there is no hope or expectation—I know that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) disagrees with me—of a sound, regional policy for Northern Ireland or any other region of the country. That is why I was disappointed in the speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It offers little hope for the Ulster people, who deserve some hope for the future.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I shall be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) wishes to speak. I support the comments of the Secretary of State towards the end of his speech about the need to paint a more honest picture of the situation in Northern Ireland. Being realistic, however, we know that we shall not make real progress in the provision of jobs until the violence has come to an end. The right hon. Gentleman must know from his visits to America and elsewhere that that is the pill that his representatives trying to bring commerce and investment to Northern Ireland have to swallow. My goodness, they have a big job to do. I hope that the House welcomes President Reagan's St. Patrick's day message. I do not know whether the visit of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and his two colleagues had anything to do with that, but we seem to have got the message across.
Living on an offshore island with not dissimilar problems to those of Northern Ireland, I often look with envy at the array of financial incentives and back-up organisations in the Province, including NIDA and LEDU, which has done a first-class job, the Department of Commerce and the availability of EEC funds, although one could inquire whether those funds are additional to what is normally available from Departments in this country.
A press release told us recently that Mr. Dennis Kirby, a senior official of the European Investment Bank, had made a two-day visit to Northern Ireland. The release said that there was to be the promotion of
small manufacturing or tourism projects involving new capial investment.
It said that loans of between £15,000 and £2·5 million would be available at attractive rates of interest, and that the scheme was to be administered by the Department of Commerce. I hope that we can be given a little more information about that. Is that additional money? May we have more facts and figures? Has any application been made to date? Certainly money for tourism projects should be of interest to Northern Ireland. We on the Isle of Wight would be enormously interested if we could get some of that money.
I remind the House of the welcome initiative made by Mr. Brendan O'Riordan and his organisation North/South and the efforts that have come from the South. They could do with a bit more help from us. One welcome aspect is

the encouragement that they are giving to industries to cooperate on both sides of the border and to run joint exhibitions also financial help for students from the South to attend universities in the North.
One such university is that at Coleraine. I read in The Observer on Sunday that Coleraine may lose its university status. I hope that that will not happen, because until comparatively recently Coleraine managed to attract 10 per cent. of its students from outside Northern Ireland. It must have been hoped that there would be students going over from Great Britain. Unfortunately, that figure has dropped to less than 2 per cent., but is there not some possibility of giving Mr. O'Riordan's initiative some help and encouraging students to go up from the South? That must be a good thing.
The Observer produced a breakdown of Protestant and Catholic attendance; it is 50 per cent. each way. A student's religion does not matter a damn when he is at Coleraine university. The only university in Europe that has closed in recent times is that on Malta. I hope that we shall not follow suit and say that Coleraine is to be the next. I plead that Coleraine should be assured that it will retain its university status.
I agreed with the Secretary of State when he made it clear that if a resurgence is to take place it must come from small concerns. That is why it is doubly sad to hear that a small firm, Tyrone Glass, which makes an excellent product, is laying off 50 employees. I do not know how many employees are left, but virtually all the staff must have gone. We need some figures about the number of jobs that have been introduced into Northern Ireland and how long they have remained. Are we losing some of those new jobs? I suspect that we are. What is the cause? I sell Tyrone Glass and I know that it is a good product. I am not sure whether it has been pushed enough in the rest of the United Kingdom. Could we promote the products of Northern Ireland to a greater extent in Great Britain?
The other matter that affects trade is the exchange rate with the South, which cannot help exporters. Until recently goods from the North were 25 per cent. dearer in the South. That is a national policy, but it is a great pity that there is that difference between the pound and the punt.
No one has mentioned Harland and Wolff—I suppose that no one dares to do so—but it has just built some new ferries for Sealink. Delivery was late, but I am told that they are good ships and that British Rail is satisfied with them. We need some new ferries for the Isle of Wight. The order has been passed and I wonder whether it could be expedited and whether Harland and Wolff could be given at least some of the orders for the cross-Solent ferries.
The petrol price increase will have a traumatic effect on the economic problems of Northern Ireland. Everything will rise in price. It is doubly bad in an area which is so dependent on transport costs. At the risk of incurring the wrath of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I remind the House that a gallon of four-star petrol costs £1·64 on the Isle of Wight. We do not get cheap petrol. I know that the price is cheaper in Northern Ireland, but it is still more expensive than in the main parts of the United Kingdom.
I suggested directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that offshore islands should have some relief from the 20p hike. I do not know whether it can be done in the Finance Bill, but it is only fair that when Scottish islands get substantial subsidies for their shipping and for firms such


as MacBrayne's, the huge petrol price increase, which will make the position of Northern Ireland exporters even worse, should not be imposed in full. There must be a way of excluding the worst affected areas from the full impact of the increase. Energy costs generally are too high in Northern Ireland. Like everyone else, I welcome the Prime Minister's recent statement, and I hope that it will be implemented quickly.
My main concern is the housing situation, which is crying out for attention. The housing policies of the Government are bad enough in the rest of the United Kingdom—I just do not understand them—but they are nonsensical in Northern Ireland, where unemployment in the construction industry in February was 24,000. The recent announcement of a further 4 per cent. reduction in Government capital expenditure on construction in 1981–82 is even worse.
According to the last house conditions survey carried out by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in 1979, there are 141 unfit dwellings per 1,000 in the overall stock of the Province. The comparable figure for England and Wales is 46 per 1,000. That situation is bad enough, without Northern Ireland's special problems. As the executive said in its last annual report:
There can be no doubt that the problems of the last decade—bringing in their wake intimidation, squatting, bombing and large-scale population movements—have contributed to making an already serious housing problem far more grave.
In that situation, it is understandable that the bitterness about the cuts is felt perhaps even more deeply in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Housing associations in the Province, having geared up for a big housing push, were stopped dead in their tracks last June. Since then nothing new has gone on site.
According to the director of the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations, Mr. Erskine Holmes, an enormous chance has been missed. He said:
We have just gone through half a decade of lost opportunities that will not be repeated. The slums will rot faster than we can cope. The paradox is that in the late 1970s we went through a period when we had British money and sympathy, but we did not take advantage of the situation. Now we are geared up to do the job, the resources have diminished.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take a lead in the Cabinet in pressing for capital resources to do something about the housing situation in Northern Ireland. We could take up a substantial number of the unemployed and do something worth while.
A high level of public expenditure in the Province is inevitable and certainly crucial at the present time if there is not to be a complete collapse of the economy. Current monetarist policies are proving disastrous to the Province.
I make a final plea. If Northern Ireland politicians could agree on a common approach, at least on the economy of the Province, it would help enormously. Events such as those of the past few weeks must inevitably make matters worse from an outside investor's point of view.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I suppose that the representatives of Northern Ireland in the House should be grateful for the opportunity to discuss, in this short debate, the economic plight of our Province and that we should pay tribute to the Opposition for giving us that opportunity. No one in Northern Ireland, however, is under any illusion that debates in the House will suddenly shrink the ever-growing dole queues. The Government

have set themselves on a policy that is totally disastrous to the Province. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say, "Let us not be gloomy." What does one say to the person who has worked faithfully, produced well and done everything according to the book in the textile industry, then loses his job and is told that it is hardly likely, as he is 50, that he will ever be employed again?
The House needs to face the fact not only that there is gloom in Northern Ireland but that we shall have more gloom. At a meeting that I had with representatives of the CBI, who technically support the Government, I heard worse criticism of the Government than I have heard from any trade unionist. Those representatives told me that if present policies continued, not only factories but the small businesses that are so important to the Northern Ireland economy would close.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) introduced some matters on which I should like to express the views of myself and my colleagues. I do not believe that the House has given us equal representation. We shall not get the number of MPs for Northern Ireland that we ought to have. The UUUC, of which the hon. Gentleman's party was a member, made a decision and put forward a recommendation for the number of members in the Convention. The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) welshed upon their own party agreement at the Speaker's Conference. When the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and I moved in this House an amendment giving us equal representation, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends sat on their backsides and refused to vote on the issue. There is no justification for their saying today that they won a great victory for equal representation. We have not got, and will not get, equal representation. We were sold short on the issue.
I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, South condemn the Government's monetary policy, for until last Monday night he and his colleagues had voted consistently for it. In an important debate the spokesman for the Ulster Unionists, the right hon. Member for Down, South, was one of the greatest defenders of the Government's policy. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to tell the Government today not to take any political initiatives and not to continue with the policy that they have pursued in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I am glad that these remarks are at least giving some stir to the debate. It was very dead previously.
I do not wish to be side-tracked in this debate, but the Secretary of State spoke about 1974 and the great difficulty experienced since, for which the Government must bear the blame. They were well and truly warned that if they proceeded on the road, which they had mapped out at Sunningdale, to a power-sharing Executive, there would be trouble in Northern Ireland. They would not listen. Upon their heads be it. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South about 1977. If the Secretary of State had brought half the force into Northern Ireland to deal with the IRA that he brought into Balleymena to deal with the farmers of South Antrim and North Antrim, the war would have been won long ago.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), addressing his own association recently, said that the war against the IRA was not being won, not because the Army and the security forces could not win it but because their hands were tied by their political masters. That was not a speech made at a Carson trail rally. That was a speech


made by an Official Unionist in the House and supported by other Official Unionists. I do not want to deal with those matters today because terrorism will have to be defeated—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not give way. I intend to speak for only a few moments and other hon. Members wish to contribute. I shall continue my speech and complete it as quickly as possible.
It should be made clear to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that terrorism will have to be defeated. The Prime Minister refuses to discuss in the House matters that are relevant to the people of Northern Ireland. I am not the only person who has raised this matter; the right hon. Gentleman's own leader raised it under a Standing Order, as did the right hon. Gentleman himself. If the Government want to end the uproar in Northern Ireland, they can do it. They will not do it by having a chosen few at a Stormont dinner to hear a blunt denial without any explanation. No one believed that denial. Even the press has now changed its attitude and says that more information is needed about the Dublin summit.
I want to ask the Government about the gloom in Northern Ireland. Is it a fact that the Northern Ireland Economic Council gave copies to the Northern Ireland Office of its economic assesment and requested that those copies should be distributed to the spokesman of the various parties in the House and to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland? The council informed me that it did so and that the Northern Ireland Office did not distribute the documents. An official of the Northern Ireland Economic Council was waiting at the airport today for an hon. Member to pick up the copies so that he might distribute them to spokesmen in the House and to hon. Members. I should like some response—I do not like the grin on the Minister of State's face—to that. If that happened, it is a crying shame and the height of hypocrisy for any Government to say that they are interested in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members are entitled to documents that would have enabled people to debate the subject intelligently with facts produced by the Northern Ireland Economic Council, an organisation that was brought into being by, and is supported by, the Government.
Perhaps the Government did not want hon. Members to see what the document contained. An important matter appears in paragraph 13. The Secretary of State says that we should not be gloomy, yet Northern Ireland suffered a fall in farm net incomes in 1980, provisionally estimated at 80 per cent. in real terms. The farming community in Northern Ireland is in a sad and sorry state. The Secretary of State should see the danger signals going up all over Northern Ireland among the fanning community.
The right hon. Gentleman met the farming community in the middle of January. He informed the House today that he cannot meet its representatives again until next week, when he will have some proposals to put to them. What about the financial year that ends on 1 April? Will agricultural interests in Northern Ireland receive any help, or is the Minister playing for time until this financial year has ended and another has begun? He should remember that small farmers are going out of business. They are

being driven into the towns, where there is already a housing problem. These small farmers cannot continue to drift into the towns—where there is no housing—without serious problems. Agriculture in Northern Ireland is almost on its last legs. No Northern Ireland Member need try to whitewash the position, because the largest industry in the Province is in a precarious situation.
What can the Government do to help? We are not asking, and I have never asked, for special deals. I am asking for parity, not charity—I emphasise that. The Secretary of State says in this Chamber that the people of Northern Ireland are realistic, then goes round the Province with his Ministers and tells us that we must take the beating and bear the cross like the rest of the United Kingdom. I am quite prepared, as are the people whom I represent, to carry that cross and take the beating if we have the same average unemployment rate as the rest of the United Kingdom, the same price for our energy, the same average cost of living, the same average wage rates and the same average transport costs. When we have parity we shall be prepared to take the beating and carry the cross, like any other part of the United Kingdom.
It is all very well for hon. Members to say that we are grateful for what the Prime Minister tells us, but we do not yet know what she will tell us. Perhaps we shall not be so grateful after we know. My ear to Whitehall tells me that our prices will be pegged and that those across the water will come up to our level. So perhaps some hon. Members will be disillusioned about the Prime Minister's statement. Time will tell.
The Northern Ireland Office should be refunding money to the people of Northern Ireland. We have paid three times more for gas and one-third more for electricity over the years. Now we are told that we shall have some parity, but we are being given no promise that it will be the same as the rest of the United Kingdom.
We in Northern Ireland have had a raw deal. We are prepared to take whatever is coming to us, but let it be on the same scale and at the same percentage as the rest of the United Kingdom.
The farmer who produces and sells his milk in Northern Ireland has to sell it at 6p a gallon less than does the farmer on the mainland. We are a small community, and we sell only 18 per cent. of our liquid milk. The rest has to go to making butter and cheese. Consequently, the milk industry is in great difficulty.
There used to be aid for the milk industry, but I remind the Minister that two years ago all the milk aid was not taken up—£3½ million was still available. Can the Secretary of State now bring forward that £3½ million which could and should have been paid to the industry, thus giving an immediate boost to the farming community? What about the suckling cow payment of £12·37, which the EEC said could be doubled by the national Government? What about doubling it now, and thus providing the farmers with cash aid?
What about our potato industry? Does the Secretary of State know anything about it? After all, the person who is answerable to this House for agriculture in Northern Ireland is a Member not of this House but of another place. Therefore, we cannot ask a question of the Minister who is primarily responsible for agriculture. The largest industry in Northern Ireland has no spokesman in this House to answer questions directly. This is important. If


The Minister responsible for agriculture in your country, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was in another place, you would kick up a fuss.

Mr. Ray Mawby: "Our" country. It is the hon. Member's country as well.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thought that the United Kingdom consisted of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mawby: It is our country.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is our United Kingdom. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has not the sense to realise the drift of my argument. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh. I came over here with representatives of the farming industry, and it is they, not I, who say that it is unfair that we do not have a Minister who sits in the Commons, whom we could question directly about what happens in Northern Ireland. How is it possible to deal with education on the one hand and agriculture on the other?
One way out for milk producers in Northern Ireland is to take their liquid milk to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what the industry has now decided to do. Let the House take warning. I do not want to hear hon. Members say that it is terrible that cheap milk is to be imported into Scotland and the North of England from Northern Ireland, because the Milk Marketing Board has told me that it will have to do that. The House should wake up and realise that farmers in Northern Ireland are in a very serious situation.
The farmers who produce potatoes tell me that they will be out of work at the end of the season. I do not know where the Government will find the money to pay all the unemployed. It would be better to put money into industry, instead of saving money for redundancies.
The Secretary of State said today that his Ministers intended to consider many things. What will they consider about Courtaulds? A sum of £1·9 million could save what is left of the Courtaulds plant at Carrickfergus and make it viable. Will the Minister provide that? He already has the document. I attended the meeting at which his officials said that they had never seen employees produce a document that was so well researched and presented, and offered such prospects to save the rest of the Courtaulds plant. Will the Minister offer £.1·9 million or any money at all, or will Courtaulds go under completely?
What about the other part of Courtaulds that is in the balance—Moy Park? What about Enkalon? Or shall we hear some nice platitudes? Will Enkalon close, too? How many factories will be closed in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Barry Porter: I am a Protestant.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not give way. I might have given way to the hon. Gentleman had he been a Roman Catholic, but I shall not do so.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose——

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman can write in The Daily Telegraph. It will take what he says. So there is no need for me to give way.
The situation in Northern Ireland is most serious. We may laugh in this Chamber, but the 100,000 people on the dole are not laughing. The people whose case I am putting today, particularly the farmers, are in a serious and tragic position. Every Northern Ireland Member knows that if

this continues, even if there is a subsequent upturn in trade, Northern Ireland will be in no position to take advantage of it. If we have no factories, how can we produce goods? If we have no trainees, how can we have the expertise to do the job? If we do not have the management and the order book, what happens?
The Secretary of State has a solemn and serious responsibility. He says that he is still considering these matters. He should have been able to come to the Dispatch Box today and say, "Here is the policy that we intend to pursue for the regeneration of industry in Northern Ireland and to give fresh hope to the people of that country."
The Northern Ireland people are not suckers. They do not want charity; they want work. They are good workmen. They can do the job. They have competed against the rest of the United Kingdom even though there is a water barrier and they have to pay high rates for energy. Are such people now to be sacrificed on the altar of the Government's monetary policy, or will the Minister tonight say something that will help the people of Northern Ireland to go forward with some little hope?
I trust that there will be a U-turn. We hear that the lady is not for turning. If the Government do not turn they will have a problem on their hands that neither they nor any hon Member will be able to handle. They had better face up to the tragedy that is coming in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Porter: Through political agitation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Not through political agitation, but as a result of unemployment. The hon. Member does not know what he is talking about. Of course there is political disquiet because the Prime Minister will not tell us what she should tell us. There will be more than political disquiet. There will be disquiet because people who want to work and should be allowed to are being denied the right to work by the Government's refusal to make available the money that would make factories viable. I am not talking about lame ducks or about factories whose closure is inevitable. I am talking about factories which management and employees say could be made viable. Cash flow difficulties are preventing them from being viable. The Government should take the opportunity to do something about the problem.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I am grateful to the official Opposition's leader and spokesman on Northern Ireland for making time available for today's debate. The Leader of the Opposition sat through the opening speches. Only rarely is prime time in the House given to a debate on Northern Ireland. We are more used to debating Northern Ireland at nocturnal hours. I am delighted that more hon. Members than usual are present. However, many other hon. Members must be within the precincts. If they were terribly concerned about Northern Ireland they would be in the Chamber hearing about the problems.
As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, this is a serious debate. It was not lighthearted until he tried to divert us down the Carson trail. He carried into the debate the disagreements within his party and with the Government.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North was not here to vote against the Budget proposals. He was not here to vote on the Northern Ireland Appropriation order. He has no Carson trail arranged for this evening, so he can find time


to be here. If his heart was where his mouth was he would have been here on Monday evening to enter the Lobby seven or eight times to vote against the proposals that will have such a disastrous effect on Northern Ireland.
Increasingly I agree with the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) about the economic plight of Northern Ireland. Clichés in reference to the PSBR and the balance of payments do not mean anything in Northern Ireland. However, in May 1979, 62,000 people in Northern Ireland were unemployed, and now nearly 100,000 people are unemployed. That is the accusation that we level at the Government, and it is that which they must answer, because they are responsible for that increase.
The Government cannot argue that all the jobs that have gone meant nothing. The Secretary of State says that we do not want insecure and non-productive jobs. He says that money must be invested to provide secure jobs. No one disagrees with that. However, the jobs that have been lost since the Government came to power were not all nonproductive.
The 100,000 unemployment figure is a tragedy for such a small area. When one analyses the figures one finds that the conclusion is much more important than the PSBR. Lord Blease gave a figure in the House of Lords last week which should cause anxiety. He said that of the 100,000 unemployed, 42,928 are under the age of 24. That is 43 per cent. of the total.
In the years from leaving school to the early twenties people begin to develop an attitude to life and, more important, to industrial life. During that time a young man meets a girl and begins to think about getting married. He begins to think of a future, of building a home and putting down roots in the community. Those early years are the most formative years in the lives of young male persons, and 43,000 of them are unemployed. They have no hope, no prospects and no future. If the Government persist in their mad pursuit of monetarism that figure will increase.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fitt: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to answer my questions. The Secretary of State said that the jobs were being abolished because the Government had decided to abolish them, as they were not producing anything. He said that they were a liability to the monetarist approach and the system, and a challenge to the whole Tory doctrine.
I do not know a great deal about economics. I am not a subscriber to the Marty Feldman school of economics—some people call it the Milton Friedman school. Does the Secretary of State regard jobs in the construction industry in Northern Ireland or anywhere else as non-productive? In my ignorance of economics I am inclined to the opinion that construction workers build and produce. They build houses, hospitals, schools and factories. They produce the buildings that are so necessary to any civilised community.
Northern Ireland has the most appalling housing conditions in Western Europe. Thousands of people are on housing waiting lists. Thousands of people live in substandard homes. A total of 24,000 bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters and other workers in the construction industry could be building homes, repairing them and adding to the

sum total of life in Northern Ireland. Instead, they are all on the dole. Do not let anyone tell me that there is not something wrong with that.

Mr. Stevens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the economy of Northern Ireland is different from that of the remainder of the United Kingdom because it has relied on three industries—namely, agriculture, shipbuilding and textiles, of which shipbuilding and textiles are in disarray? To establish his case he must demonstrate that the downturn in those two industries is the direct fault of the Government.

Mr. Fitt: The three industries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman have nothing to do with the construction industry. I am asking questions about that industry, and not about shipbuilding. About 24,000 young people, many under 18 years of age, have no hope of finding employment in the construction industry.
A report has been produced by the Northern Ireland Economic Council. I hope that the Government will answer the charge made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North that they did not want us to see the report. That council has been recognised by the Government. It is not a fly-by-night, Left-wing or trouble-making organisation. It has a great deal of respectability. Paragraph 12 of its report states:
The worst affected sectors continue to be man-made fibres, construction and agricultural. The complete closure of the Courtaulds and ICI plants at Carrickfergus and Kilroot will reduce employment in the industry to just over 3,000".
Northern Ireland was once the hope of the man-made fibre industry. Tens upon thousands were employed in the industry, but only 3,000 remain.
Northern Ireland debates are especially difficult for English Members, who do not understand the effects of such job losses. A whole series of events has brought about that position in the man-made fibres industry—for example, the importation of cheaper American fibres and the EEC reverberation from that. The young people who, in the late 1950s and through the 1960s, took up jobs in that industry—which everyone thought had a great future for at least 20 years—now find themselves part of the 100,000 unemployed.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) cannot justify 24,000 unemployed in the construction industry, when Northern Ireland is crying out for houses. How can the Government justify the fact that the unemployed are a drain or a claim on the social security system? That money must be found from somewhere. Is it not better to employ people to build houses, schools, hospitals and assets that will be of value to the community for generations to come, than to allow them to idle away their time?

Mr. Porter: The hon. Gentleman's point about the construction industry is equally applicable to Merseyside, where 36 per cent. of available construction workers are unemployed. It is applicable also to other parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman fails to appreciate that if we build all those desirable things we shall add to the public sector borrowing requirement, which he dismisses. The effect of that will be to shove up interest rates, which will have an equally undesirable effect on private industry. Is not the significant and unique aspect of the economy of the Province not that it is especially


different economically but that it is different politically from the remainder of the United Kingdom? Would it not——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a lengthy interruption. I called the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to address us.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) said that Northern Ireland found itself in its current position because of political differences. Before we accept the argument that keeping people in employment will push up the public sector borrowing requirement and the interest rates, we must ask the person advancing it at what stage, and at what figure, we should stop thinking that way. Must there be 150,000 unemployed in Northern Ireland? My noble Friend Lord Blease said that there were 25,000 on short-time working in Northern Ireland. Added to the current 100,000 unemployed, that gives a total of 125,000. Others do not even sign the local register, because it is a waste of time, so the figure is probably nearer 130,000 or 135,000. The unemployed are crying out to heaven for justice. Something must be done to stop unemployment from rising. How can we expect a civilised society, any sort of normality and any political agreement or political normality in a community that has to suffer the rigours of such unemployment?
I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will take the opportunity to tell us about that little electricity do. I do not think that the Prime Minister suddenly decided to go to Northern Ireland to talk about bringing electricity prices into line with those in Great Britain without having some idea of the answer. If she did not have any idea, there must be some truth in the allegation that someone said to her "Get you on that plane and stop Paisley at Ballymena." That may have been the case, but I hope that it was not.
We understand that electricity prices are to be brought into line with those in the remainder of the United Kingdom at a cost of many millions of pounds, but we were told in a written answer to a Conservative Member of Parliament, who tabled a planted question, that £60 million will be taken off the Northern Ireland budget to pay for the lowering of the electricity tariff. That happened last year, and we do not want it to happen again.
Certain matters should be clarified, especially how much, how little, or if ever, we shall receive assistance from the EEC. I repeat what I said last week, that people in Northern Ireland are told every day by the press, on the television and by the three competing hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland at the European Parliament, that some great bonanza is coming to Northern Ireland that will help farmers, the infrastructure and Belfast. The British Government have only to ask the EEC to give us £320 million for the regeneration of Belfast. I want that money to come to Belfast, but I fear that the whole matter is bunkum and that we shall not get it. It is unfair to build up people's hopes that they will get that money and that it will lead to a new way of life in Northern Ireland.
We are aware of the report of the Select Committee in another place, which said that the British Government had been pocketing money from the EEC that should be spent on the regions in Northern Ireland. That charge has been levelled not only at the British Government but at all national Governments in the EEC that are all guilty of that

practice. The money that is made available from the regional and social funds is not additional to the money that would have been spent in any case in those regions. There seems to be a mass of conflicting information about what is happening.
Countries that contribute smaller sums than others and receive larger payments stand to gain a great deal. Countries that put a great deal into the Common Market—such as the United Kingdom—can probably say that the moneys that they receive are theirs anyway and that they are not getting anything back in addition to what they contributed. Additionality may not arise. It is not fair to make a region believe that it stands to gain from a great windfall or bonanza, but we have been told that time and time again in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland ministers should be clear on what we are entitled to and what we are getting.
I am grateful to the Opposition for initiating the debate. I could continue at great length about the subjects that relate to it. However, 100,000 unemployed are now signing the register. If the hidden unemployed are included, total unemployment is 125,000 or perhaps 130,000. Reputable economists in Northern Ireland predict that by the end of 1981 between 135,000 and 140,000 will be signing the register. That will be intolerable.
At some stage there will be social discontent. That will be occasioned not by the summit talks and what we know or do not know about them, and not because of partition, the border or a divided community, but because the people do not have the facilities that they expect or the wherewithal to enable them to live what is regarded as a normal life in 1981.
The Government are responsible in that they are standing by and watching unemployment increase from 62,000 to nearly 100,000 in Northern Ireland. That is a responsibility from which they cannot run away. The people of Northern Ireland, as citizens of the United Kingdom, are entitled to Government action. They are entitled to ask the Government to ensure that the economic base is intact if and when the upturn comes.

Mr. Porter: What does the hon. Gentleman say about inflation?

Mr. Fitt: What have Northern Ireland workers done to increase the rate of inflation? When the Government took office there were 60,000 or 70,000 unemployed. Unemployment has increased to nearly 100,000. Northern Ireland workers have done nothing since 1979 to increase the rate of inflation or to cause the increased unemployment. There are hon. Members who do not represent Northern Ireland constituencies who talk about long-term unemployment. Those who sign on for six months are described as the long-term unemployed of Britain. In Northern Ireland there are those who sign on for six months, six years, 16 years, 20 years and up to 30 years. I obtained the figures from the Northern Leland Office, and they are to be found in Hansard. That is what I call long-term unemployment. That description cannot be applied to those who are unemployed for six, seven or eight months, but it must be applied to those who are unemployed for five, 10 and 20 years. In areas such as Ballymurphy, Turf Lodge, Strabane and Newry unemployment can range from 25 to 50 per cent. That is the sort


of area that I represent and with which I am familiar. That is the type of area about which the Government will have to do something.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I shall try to be brief and not repeat anything that I said on 9 March on the Appropriation order debate concerning industry, agriculture, electricity tariffs and the Northern Ireland trade unions, to which I paid tribute. I shall seek not to be diverted.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that he would not be sidetracked—indeed, he did not give way to me—but he sidetracked the debate when he referred to Sunningdale, the war against the Provisional IRA and the security forces. Having reappeared in the House, I think that the hon. Gentleman should have seized the opportunity—it would have been in accordance with the decencies of this place—either to substantiate or to withdraw the allegations that he made against members of Her Majesty's Army, who he said were dining and wining at a Republican house at the time of the Tynan murders—a grave allegation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made certain remarks in the House and you put me out of the House as a result. Surely the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is out of order in trying to raise a matter that you have dealt with already.

Mr. Speaker: Order. First, I did not put the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) out of the House. The hon. Gentleman helped to put himself out, but it was the House that decided on that action because the hon. Gentleman referred to someone as a liar and refused to withdraw that allegation. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has not referred to that. I hope that he will now direct his remarks to the economic issues of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I return immediately to the debate and refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). In common with the hon. Gentleman and with nearly every hon. Member, if not every hon. Member, who has spoken, I must say how welcome the debate has been and how unusual it has been for a regional debate. If Wales, Scotland or an English region were being debated, one would expect Members representing constituencies in that region to speak and for few, if any, hon. Members from outside the region to make a contribution. However, it is right that Members from every part of the kingdom should express their concern for Northern Ireland, which has suffered so much, with such patience and courage, for so long. I hope that from this debate the impression will go forth that the allegation of economic disengagement from the Province has no foundation.
Those who sometimes speak of economic disengagement, or even their desire for it, are inclined to say that Northern Ireland is a province that places a strain on the rest of the country and receives far more than its due meed of assistance from the kingdom as a whole. At present, Northern Ireland is receiving immense sums because of terrorism. That is what would happen if any other region of the United Kingdom were similarly to suffer. However,

all the figures reveal that in terms of public expenditure Northern Ireland has done hardly better, if at all better, than Scotland in proportion to population.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that the situation in Northern Ireland had never been as serious as it is now. He was speaking mostly about unemployment. Of course, unemployment in Northern Ireland is terrible. It is nearly double the United Kingdom average. However, we must remember that not long ago unemployment in Northern Ireland never fell below 25 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to that, and to some extent, therefore, he contradicted his argument.
It is said by some that when the recovery comes, and it will come, Northern Ireland will be so devastated that it will be unable to take advantage of it. I shall mention one or two positive factors. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry last year that Northern Ireland's performance was better than that of the United Kingdom. He observed that between 1975 and 1979
manufacturing output per head rose by 11 per cent. in Northern Ireland compared with a United Kingdom average increase of 8 per cent. This increase in productivity reflects the ability of industry here to maintain a profitable and efficient operation which can compete in national and international markets.
In 1980 output in Northern Ireland rose by 1.5 per cent. In the United Kingdom as a whole it fell by 3.5 per cent. Industrial relations have been good in the Province. Those are positive factors.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to unemployment in the textile industry. I thought that we might have heard a little more about that from the hon. Member for Antrim, North. Part of the problem is cheap American imports of man-made fibres. We should like to know, because Americans are tough traders, whether all that competition is fair. There is national machinery to deal with that in the Department of Trade, and there is also machinery in the EEC for that purpose. I am by no means satisfied that that machinery always works well or fast. Perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate will say something about that.
Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, is not immune to the troubles of the United Kingdom, which is gripped by a world slump. I should like to say, "amid the encircling gloom" of the debate, that just as recovery will come in the rest of the United Kingdom so it will come in Northern Ireland. I have much confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers in that regard.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), who presides over the Department of Commerce, has shown himself interested in and active on behalf of the industries of the Province and is doing his best to stimulate small businesses. The attraction of investment from abroad is the subject of unrivalled incentives. That is another positive factor that has not been mentioned in the debate.
I said that I trusted Her Majesty's Ministers, but people do more than Governments, as the Secretary of State said. I have much faith in the energies, enterprise and adaptability of the people in Northern Ireland. The Province has been most grievously and persistently misrepresented and maligned in different quarters in this country and in different parts of the world.
I welcome what President Reagan said in his St. Patrick's Day message. The sort of Noraid that we might like from the United States is an abatement of cheap textile


exports and more investment in the great possibilities of Northern Ireland. We want from the Americans business of mutual advantage. We want a fair judgment of Northern Ireland, whether from the United States or from investors in any other country. Let investors, tourists and tour operators go there and see for themselves. Above all, let Americans go and see, because, as they will know if they study their history, it is a province upon which the foundation of their country rests.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Merseyside has parity with Northern Ireland. Our unemployment, devastation and depredation of the environment are equal to conditions in Belfast. We have equal difficulties in housing, and our industries are in an almost identical state. In general, we have the same attitude and the same priorities. We have close identification with Northern Ireland because for a long time we have lived side by side. In years gone by it was said that Liverpool was the gateway to Ireland, although some said that it was also the exit.
I shall refer in particular to the agriculture industry of Northern Ireland. It is not receiving all possible attention and help. I was grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene in his speech. I mentioned that the abolition of the Agricultural Trust was not to the advantage of Northern Ireland. There is nothing that can take the place of the valuable work that that organisation was doing at little cost. I should admit immediately to the Secretary of State that his predecessors in the Labour Administration were advised to do exactly what he was advised to do. Two previous Secretaries of State thought that the advice given by the Northern Ireland Office should be implemented. Those who represent Northern Ireland may have been fortunate that I was in the Province also, working in the Northern Ireland Office. I resisted that claim and demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of the Agricultural Trust should not be ignored, although it was easy and tempting to cut it out of any estimate.
Therefore, I appeal to the Secretary of State, even at this late hour, to reconsider what has been done, although the order abolishing the trust has gone through the normal parliamentary stages. He did so in respect of the Sports Council. There is no reason why he should not reflect and take more time before reaching major decisions of this sort. If he does not reverse his decision he will have to deal with the matter in other ways.
One of the major problems is to find a market for the agricultural produce of Northern Ireland, not least in milk but in the food manufacturing sector. The value-added product was bringing some financial return to those engaged in the industry. That return helped to achieve greater stability in agriculture. If the Minister wants that part of the agriculture-based industry to be maintained and to prosper he will have to deal with it by helping with marketing arrangements and in presenting the product abroad and in places where Northern Ireland agriculture-based products have not yet been seen or displayed. If he were to do that, perhaps some of my criticism—I hope that it is constructive criticism—about the demise of the Agricultural Trust would not be valid. I hope that he will take that point on board.
The Government should give special consideration to increasing the remoteness grant. If the Secretary of State and his Ministers consider the problems of the remoteness

of some of the farm land in Northern Ireland, they will and that major difficulties are caused by transport and energy costs. I appreciate that there has been a promise of alleviation in that respect. Some of the land use is not bringing the income which it should produce. Some of the smallholdings are probably not as viable as they should be. That is the inheritance of those on the agricultural land in Northern Ireland and in the whole of Ireland. Whatever may be the economic factors which persuade Governments to advocate a greater merging of the smaller units to make larger economic-based and viable units, the people of Northern Ireland have resisted that because their heritage and history are bound up with the ownership of that land.
The Government should also reconsider the pig and poultry industry and, in that connection, support prices for grain. Moy Park, a subsidiary of Courtalds, may soon find that its trading potential is commercially unattractive. If that part of the industry closes, it will be disastrous. Northern Ireland poultry producers depend on Moy Park for their livelihood. What special financial support can the Government give for the pig and poultry industry? Some Northern Ireland Members state that they they are not pleading for special aid. I admire that. However, the pig and poultry sector has a special difficulty, and, therefore, a case for special aid.
Northern Ireland has special problems. It is the only part of the United Kingdom with an open border. Two sorts of currency operate on the same land mass. The CAP has different consequences for the two parts of Ireland, which causes grave difficulties. The problems for Northern Ireland farmers are exacerbated from time to time by the system. In addition, I believe that Northern Ireland has to pay a higher price for membership of the EEC than does the remainder of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that any of us wants that to be so.
The percentage of liquid milk consumption in Northern Ireland is low. It is generally about 18 per cent. of production. It has never risen above 21 per cent. It is not an easy problem to deal with. However, I see no reason why Northern Ireland should not have a special pricing arrangement. I realise that because of the volume of milk production in Northern Ireland there are complexities that we cannot deal with in this short debate. However, let me make one or two suggestions. If it exists, the loss factor of 6p per gallon could be made up by special grant aid. Special provisions could be made to sell milk into manufacturing. A deficit trading arrangement may also help to ease the problem. Such assistance may well work its way through the remainder of the industry with the beef variable premiums. It may even help to re-establish the extension of grassland for pasture. Such help would be tremendous. Help could also be given for fertilising the land. The special lime subsidy could be reinstated, which would greatly help those who are trying to make the land arable and productive.
I am sure that it was not a deliberate decision to keep the Economic Council report from the House. I say to Northern Ireland Ministers—who are listening with great care and attention—that they should re-establish and reinforce the standing arrangement that I helped to make that at all times every Northern Ireland spokesman and every party in the House should receive a copy of each report. There can, therefore, be no possibility of misunderstanding, and the responsibility is clear. If something goes wrong, is easy to find out who is responsible, and why.
Security has been mentioned. I take issue with those who talk as though terrorism comes from only one source. There is a tendency to blame one sector of the terrorist movement for everything. All terrorism in the Province does immense and equal damage. Atrocities perpetrated against the innocent civilian community are dramatic and devastating, no matter what label we put on them. I understand the emotion among Northern Ireland Members, which comes from their backgrounds. However, they may tend to overlook the effect of terrorism. They may be tempted to play down the impact of the 1977 dispute that burst forth all over the Province. At the time, para-militaries played a prominent part, in some cases aided by hon. Members who are still in the House. Those who might have been unwise in their association at that time have an opportunity to rectify the matter. I hope that they will use the opportunity to bring advantage and investment to the Province.
We all wish the Secretary of State and the Government well in Northern Ireland. If they do well, the Province will do well and we shall all do well. However, if inadvertently or unwillingly they do not achieve success, we shall all suffer the consequences. I hope that the Government will accept my constructive criticism, which was sincerely meant. I hope that they will succeed.

Mr. Tom Pendry: This has been an exceptional debate, on an exceptional subject. The adjective "unique" has been used. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) set the right scene.
I agree with those who are pleased that the debate is taking place at a reasonable hour. It is good to see some hon. Members who may not be with us in the wee hours of the morning.
No one who has heard the debate will deny that the people of Northern Ireland are suffering under a heavy burden of unemployment and social deprivation. I take the point that Liverpool, Scotland, parts of Wales, the North-East and, indeed, my own area, the North-West, have great problems stemming from the Government's policies, but Northern Ireland perhaps suffers most severely.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that certain of the social and economic problems of the Province are endemic. From my experience as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office I appreciate that there are no easy solutions to the vicious circle of industrial decline, unemployment, poor housing and heavy reliance on social security.
In recent years, of course, the problems have been compounded by violence and terrorism. The job of the Administration, of whichever party, in grappling with and trying to overcome the social and economic problems has therefore been made far more difficult. That must be said from the start.
During the past 19 months, however, especially during Appropriation debates, the Opposition have consistently highlighted the economic distress in Northern Ireland. Week by week, established, new and not so new firms have been closing down. Last month there were 99,849 registered unemployed in Northern Ireland. Since then STC has added 350 and Bridgeport United Kingdom 75, and many other firms have added to the total. The number

of unemployed is therefore well over the magic figure of 100,000. In addition, there are those who are not registered. I therefore do not think that many would disagree when I say that the real figure must be about 120,000 unemployed.
On the occasion of each financial debate we have called upon the Government to arrest the economic decline of the Province by halting the cuts in public expenditure which have accounted for job losses as well as service reductions. We have urged the Government to recognise Northern Ireland as a special case deserving of special treatment. That has been our consistent theme. The economic structure there is so weak as to be unable to bear the thrust of the double-edged sword of monetarist dogma and public expenditure cuts. Week by week, and month by month, evidence has mounted to show that we were right then and we are Tight now to make that plea to the Government.
The main purpose of the debate is to put our case forcefully to the Government and to recommend that a special strategy be developed for the Province along the lines of that adopted by the Labour Administration between 1976 and 1979, in which my right hon. Friend played a major part, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). It is not as though it has never been tried before. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked what we had said in the debate. We have said that the Government should go back to the policies pursued by the Labour Government. My right hon. Friend spelt out clearly what our policy was then and what it would be now if we were in Government.
After three years of hard graft between 1976 and 1979, we were beginning to succeed. Jobs were being saved and new firms were being attracted to unemployment black spots. The condition of the housing stock, although we were not satisfied with it, was improving. The people of Northern Ireland were given some hope by a Government who were actually seen to care about their problems. As Professor William Black of Queen's university said not long ago,
With hindsight, 1978 and 1979 were the buoyant and prosperous years for trade and commerce in the Province.
Many hon. Members have presented the case with bitterness and frustration. I think that they took the lead from my right hon. Friend. I hope that the message has got across and that the Government will respond to it.
It seems that all the current forecasts of unemployment levels that they have stressed today may be underestimates. In January last year, Coopers and Lybrand, who must be the most oft-quoted consultants in the world, predicted that the level of unemployment in the Province would reach 80,000 by Christmas 1980. As we all know, the figure was nearer 100,000. This year, the same firm has predicted that 125,000 will be out of work by December. Present indications are that that figure—equivalent to 21·5 per cent.—will be reached by early autumn. Indeed, it it more than likely that the Government's own predictions for 1982–83 will be exceeded before the year is out. It is little wonder that Sir Philip Foreman, whom the Secretary of State quoted to aid his case and whom I shall now quote to aid mine, said:
The terrible truth about unemployment in the Province is that the total out of work will soon outnumber the people employed in manufacturing.
That is what the debate is about.
In spite of all that, the Government continue to apply their policies in Northern Ireland, even when everyone


else can see that they are not working. I use the phrase in a dual sense. The Government stumble blindly on, cutting and closing, refusing to accept the truth of the situation that they have created. That is hardly a moral course of action. If there were time I should refer not to the Conservatives' manifesto, as they carefully did not say too much about Northern Ireland in that, but to the Tory Central Office pamphlet, in the "Politics Today" series, entitled: "The Northern Ireland economy: A Special Case?" A special case was argued by the Conservatives in that pamphlet. But they were in Opposition then, of course. I hope that Conservative Members will take careful note of the case that my right hon. Friend has made today for a special strategy for Northern Ireland.
I shall now put to the House several more reasons why that course of action should be adopted at the earliest possible date.
The Government's policy on housing is clearly at fault and in need of urgent review. Despite what the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing said at Question Time, the plain fact is that the financial allocation to the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland has been cut for the second year running. For the new financial year the cut is £15 million, which is equivalent to the cost of building 750 houses. That is on top of cuts totalling £29 million in 1980.
The Housing Executive's building and repair programme has been curtailed, despite the fact that there are 32,000 people on the waiting list and that two out of three of those people have priority rating. Only last autumn the chairman of the Housing Executive said that 5,000 new houses would have to be built each year over the next 10 years merely to stand still. In view of the Government's cuts, that will have to be revised upwards.
Ministers have frequently dodged the housing problem in Northern Ireland by stating that the rate of finance is higher per capita than in the rest of the United Kingdom. That may well be so, but the problems are at least three times as great. The last Administration attempted to do something about the situation. Between 1974 and 1979 the rate of unfitness was reduced by more than 30 per cent. I ask the Government by how much it has been cut since the Conservatives came to office. It has undoubtedly grown, and they know it. I therefore do not suppose that I shall get an answer when the Minister replies to the debate. There is no doubt that the cuts made by the Government have interrupted the progress of 1974–79 and have reversed the achievements of the Labour Administration. Unless adequate finance for housing is made available soon, the ageing and deteriorating housing stock in Northern Ireland will become the kind of problem that Shelter recently highlighted and of which the Minister must be well aware.
The Secretary of State referred to agriculture as a most important industry, which it is. The Government have got their policy wrong in agriculture, too. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale have spelt that out. The Government have got it so wrong that the fanners in Northern Ireland are raging, as the Secretary of State knows. We thought, as I am sure they did, that he would meet them today. It seems that that was not his intention. Since January he has been putting off the day when he will meet them to tell them the hard facts of life from the Government's standpoint. When the Secretary of State meets the farmers of Northern Ireland he had better give

them something good, because they are in a very angry mood. When a Northern Ireland farmer gets angry, he gets really angry. If the Secretary of State does not know that, he will soon find out.
The high cost of feedstuffs, in particular, militates against the farming community especially when so many of them are struggling to stay in business, despite the adverse trading climate brought about by the Government's policies. Special Government assistance is needed urgently if the level of pig and poultry production is not to decline further. I should like to develop that further, but there is no time.
Throughout their lifetime the Labour Government recognised that need and gave special assistance to maintain production and associated employment. I note with dismay that according to the Government's recent expenditure plans for Northern Ireland:
It has not been possible to make provision for the continuation of milk aid which has hitherto been funded on a year-to-year basis".
This matter has already been referred to by two hon. Members. That decision was greeted with the utmost dismay by dairy farmers in the Province. That sort of help was vital to those farmers because a much lower proportion of milk from the Province goes into the liquid market than is the case in the rest of Great Britain—on average 20 per cent., compared with 50 per cent. Consequently, the rate of return per gallon in Northern Ireland is almost two-thirds lower than it is in the rest of Great Britain. The decision not to restore milk aid demonstrates the Government's crass indifference to the plight of the dairy farmers.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: indicated dissent.

Mr. Pendry: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, he can get his hon. Friend to refute those figures when he replies to the debate.
It appears that, out of desperation, the Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board now plans to send liquid milk to the mainland—as has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Antrim, North—possibly to Lancashire ports. Those of us in the North-West would not want that. What a sorry impasse we have reached when the only way in which the Northern Ireland milk producers can draw the Government's attention to their plight is by undertaking that dramatic exercise.
Agriculture is an important industry. There are 9,000 dairy farmers and 6,000 workers in associated industries. Therefore, it must not be dismissed lightly. I am sure that Ministers are aware—although I sometimes wonder—that agriculture is the most stable industry in Northern Ireland—or at least it was up to 1979. It contributes 6 per cent. of the GNP and together with allied industries employs nearly 14 per cent. of the work force of the Province. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman meets the farmers he will take their representations seriously.
In practically every Appropriation debate since May 1979 I have criticised the Government's negative attitude towards this industry. I had hoped that following the meeting in January we would see a breakthrough, because the Secretary of State said that he would refer to the problems within a matter of days of meeting the farmers. We are still waiting. I hope that we shall hear some good news very soon.
Rather than engaging in agonising decisions about where to get the money for the Northern Ireland budget


from, the Secretary of State must go to the Cabinet and fight his corner for money for Northern Ireland. Other Secretaries of State have done so. We have seen what has happened. They have come away with extra cash. They fought their corner hard. It appears that that is an essential weakness in the Northern Ireland team. They do not seem to have the willingness to fight for their slice of the cake. It is no good hiding, as some do, behind the mantle of EEC funding—incidentally, the £40 million of aid recently announced is still not to hand—because that is not the kind of answer for which the farming community is looking.
I deal next with education. I raised this subject during the Appropriation debate, but I did not have much time then to deal with the cutback in Northern Ireland teaching staff. Whatever the Minister says about the overall teaching ratio, the plain fact is that about 400 more primary school teachers are required to bring the pupil-teacher ratio up to the standard of that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Unemployment among teachers has increased by 39 per cent. over last year. There seems little hope of providing jobs for those in teacher training colleges who will come out this summer. It will be argued that the school population is falling. We saw that coming when we were in Government, and we took some action. We redistributed moneys to those education establishments that needed it most and ensured that the special education sector got its share of the resources.
We hope that the Government will take some notice of what we are saying. We took the lead on the Sports Council issue. We were told time and again that the Government would not think again about the Sports Council, that they had made up their mind, that it would go and that it was one of the quangos that had to be wound up. Labour Members took the lead, and they were joined by many others. We do not want to crow too much about that, but it proved to be a success.
We lost on the Agricultural Trust issue. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale has asked the right hon. Gentleman to think again. We ask the Government to adopt the same spirit as they did on the Sports Council issue and to look again at some of the other matters that we have raised.
One thing has emerged from this debate. I hope that once and for all there will be an end to the illusion that there is a bipartisan agreement in respect of the Government's economic and social policies in Northern Ireland. There is no such agreement. We vigorously oppose their economic measures in the Province and call on them to come forward with a positive job strategy for Northern Ireland. That is the very least that they can do for the people of that strife-torn area before, inevitably, they give way to Labour to form the next Government. That may well be sooner rather than later. Whenever that day comes, I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will rejoice.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I can confirm that there is no bipartisan agreement on economic policy, and I am delighted that that should be so.
Both the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) made great play of the success of Labour's economic strategy for Northern Ireland. I want to dispose of that myth. I do not doubt the honourable intentions of my right hon. Friend's predecessors, but the facts do not support the assertions that they made.
Unemployment more than doubled during the period in which Labour was in control of Northern Ireland's affairs. Unemployment got worse every year, even in 1978, when it was a little better in the rest of the United Kingdom, and there was no world recession at that time.
Our job promotion performance was bettered only in one year of Labour's term of office. In addition, there were the three lean Labour years between 1975 and 1977, when the level of job promotion was about two-thirds of what we have achieved.
Average industrial development expenditure during the five years of the Labour Administration was lower than the average under this Administration. If we look at the overall picture of expenditure and compare the last three years of the previous Administration with the first two years and next year's expenditure plans of the Conservative Administration, we find that the previous Administration spent less in the Province.
On top of a massive world recession Labour left us with gathering inflation and a series of problems on our plate, with which we have been trying to deal ever since.
I must agree—I think that the House will also agree—that, apart from those wild unsubstantiated assertions by the Opposition Front Bench, we have had some constructive and sensible remarks to consider. The general tone of the debate has been sensible—apart from the baseless and senseless allegation of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about the Northern Ireland Economic Council document, which he suggested Ministers had deliberately withheld from hon. Members. I refute that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Where is it?

Mr. Butler: The distribution and circulation of papers from the Economic Council is a matter for that council. The House might like to know that, following a meeting of that council last Friday, revisions to this document had to be carried out on Monday morning. The council did its best to get copies to Northern Ireland Members and to Opposition spokesmen, as well as to Northern Ireland Ministers, but it seems that postal delays—possibly associated with St. Patrick's Day—caused some difficulties. I understand that some copies were received today at the last minute. However, the point that the hon. Gentleman wished to raise concerning that document—on agricultural expenditure—was well known to the House and was debated at some length on the Appropriation order—a debate in which he was not able to take part.
Agriculture has inevitably occupied much of our attention during the debate. To pick up the point about the rate of return on milk, I think that there must have been some confusion in our understanding of what was being said, or some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. The rate of return on milk is nowhere near two-thirds lower. The important figure is 1·5p per litre less on a price of 13p per litre—which is about 10 per cent. Nevertheless, it is an important matter


because of the split in Northern Ireland between production for liquid milk and for manufactured products. We all realise that.
I shall not say more about the agricultural scene now because my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he will be discussing his conclusions next week with the Ulster Farmers Union, and I think that that was generally acceptable to hon. Members. It is because of the importance that the Government attach to agriculture in Northern Ireland that this matter is being dealt with by the Secretary of State himself.
We discussed the question of energy at length on the occasion of the Appropriation order debate, and again in exchanges at Question Time. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we shall announce the details of how the scheme will work as soon as we can. The date on which Great Britain tariffs will change—1 April—draws near, and what will happen must be made clear to those in the Province.
Hon. Members have raised a number of subjects. I should particularly like to comment on assistance from the EEC. The issue was raised in a number of different ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked about dumping. I understand that this is a matter for the EEC Commission, but it is up to the Government to ensure that reactions are as quick as they can be. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade made an important statement in Brussels yesterday on this vital question of imports into Britain of man-made fibres. He said:
Unless there is an early and effective moderation of United States exports to the United Kingdom in certain particularly sensitive sectors, the Commission should make it clear to the United States that consideration would have to be given to action in GATT or under the MFA.
Those who understand what happens in textiles will realise the significance of those remarks. As I have said previously, in practice I believe that the decision of the Reagan Administration to decontrol oil prices will work its way through into man-made fibre prices and will be particularly helpful to us on that score.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) mentioned claims that vast sums of money were available for the Province if only the Government would go out and get them.

Mr. Fitt: The Minister has heard those claims himself.

Mr. Butler: I have heard those claims. I am not responsible for them. It is claimed that there is a large fund of money readily available for Northern Ireland.
With regard to the integrated operations in Belfast, the Government are liaising with Belfast city council and other public bodies and we shall make a submission to Brussels in the near future. However, I emphasise again that the integrated operation is a concept that is still in the experimental stage. I believe that suggestions that £100 million or a similar sum is available are raising expectations quite unrealistically. I stress that no new funds have been earmarked for that integrated operation concept, so let us not chase that hare. Of course, if the scheme takes shape we must see what funds we can get, but there is no package of money available for this purpose.
Hon. Members mentioned various companies. I hope that they will excuse me if, in the few minutes that I have left, I do not deal with the matters that they raised, because

I want to come to the main. Opposition charge against the Government—that we have no strategy for the Province. Having listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Mansfield I do not think that he has one, either. He started, very commendably, by saying that his strategy was designed to create jobs and to attract inward investment—so far, so good; I agreed with him up to that point—but after that I lost him, because the only formula that he gave was that in which so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends indulge—spend, spend and spend.
Let me repeat the positive strategy of the Government towards industry and commerce in the Province. It is a threefold strategy, aimed at supporting, first, established industry and allowing it to grow. But in a case such as that of Courtaulds of Carrickfergus, we have to judge whether there is the possibility of viability in the near future for a company of that sort. I shall study carefully the presentation that the hon. Member for Antrim, North brought to my officials on Monday. I was unable to see him then because his time could not coincide with mine. However, my understanding is that the management of that company decided to close the factory because there was no future viability for it—and that, surely, is the first and foremost test.
The second prong of the strategy is to encourage the starting of new businesses. The Budget will have a further welcome impact here. I hope particularly that full use will be made of the loan guarantee scheme. We shall be inviting the banks and the ICFC in Northern Ireland to participate, and I hope that a path will be trodden to their doors.
However, as I have said previously, even with the success that we have had so far, and which we hope we shall have with the establishment of new businesses in the future and in building up indigenous companies, we do not believe that this will be sufficient to overcome the size of the unemployment problem that we face, and therefore we must attract in companies from outside. It is highly questionable whether limitless money would do the trick.
At my door there is no queue of companies wanting to go to Northern Ireland. We cannot pick and choose. As hon. Members said, potential investors have the security situation in mind. Therefore, leaders and politicians in the Province have a duty to do their best to present the picture as it is and to remove from the minds of many observers—both in this country and overseas—an erroneous picture of the Province. They also have a duty to do their best to bring about political and social stability and a settled climate. That would help immensely. The House knows the size of the fund that is being put behind our industrial development strategy. I have already referred to it as exceeding that which the previous Administration were prepared to provide.
I refer next to the Budget. The increase in petrol costs will have an impact on many of those who travel to work and on many of the companies that have transport problems. However, industry has profited from the Budget. If the effects of stock relief and of the reduction in interest rates are taken into account, over £1,000 million will be put back into United Kingdom industry in a full year. Of course, the Province will benefit from that. In addition, the Province will benefit from the reduction in interest rates. Both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain one of the problems in agriculture is the extent of


the indebtedness of farmers, and they continually tell us about that. Like industry, they will benefit from the cut in interest rates.
We were asked whether we would provide a message of hope for Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend's firm policy on political and security problems bears fruit, there will be increasing hope. On the economic side, there is great hope when firms such as Dupont, with the recently announced investment of £45 million, Michelin, which has a £23 million re-equipment programme, and Tootal—all of which have experience of the Province, the quality of the labour force and what the Province has to offer them—decide to spend their money in that way. That must give us grounds for hope. Expectations should not be raised too high, but we now have two licences for drilling onshore and offshore. The drilling will be mainly for gas, but possibly for some oil. After proper scrutiny, my Department wasted no time in awarding the latest licence for operations, which will take place mainly in County Fermanagh.
In addition, there is hope, because a Conservative Government are in office. We have a positive policy—call it monetarism; call it what one will—and we have a Government who are not prepared to see past mistakes repeated through premature reflation of the economy or through a wild orgy of senseless spending. Such spending would have only one result, which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spelt out clearly during our debate on the Budget. Premature inflation would result only in hyperinflation, which would lead to increasing unemployment. Therefore, there is hope. We are pursuing in Northern Ireland a positive economic and industrial strategy that is backed by generous expenditure, and is aimed at producing new and lasting jobs. Therefore, I reject the charge of the Opposition, who called for the debate.

Mr. Alistair Goodlad: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I shall put the Question.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House, mindful that the Prevention of Terrorism Act was intended as a temporary measure and that it provides wide ranging powers that should exist in a free society only if they are essential to the defeat of terrorism, calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to set up an inquiry into the working of the Act and to instruct that inquiry to make recommendations on its future operations, including, if it thinks fit, amendments to the present Act.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him at this stage? There is bound to be overlapping between the motion that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed and the order. They must be taken separately, because that is in the interests of the House, but I accept that there is bound to be some overlapping in the debate.

Mr. Hattersley: Although the Prevention of Terrorism Act is described in its official title as a temporary provision, it has been in continuous operation in Great Britain for the past six and a half years. Since its inception, the need for constant review has been accepted. A year after it came into operation—although legislatively unnecessary—a second Bill was introduced, debated and carried by this House with the specific intention of providing right hon. and hon. Members with a further opportunity to examine its provisions.
Three years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—then Home Secretary—set up an inquiry into the operation of the Act. This evening, the Opposition ask only that that Act—which was originally temporary—should be re-examined, as it was in 1978, when Lord Shackleton was invited by my right hon. Friend to look at its provisions and operation. A debate that calls for such an inquiry must begin with a simple, three-sentence description of the Act's main provisions.
The Act proscribes specific organisations and makes it an offence to join, support or finance them. It entitles the Home Secretary to exclude from the United Kingdom or from Great Britain persons who are not normally resident in either of those States and who in his judgment are, or may be, terrorists. The Act allows the police to detain without trial for 48 hours men and women whom they suspect of terrorism and provides for the extension of that detention for up to seven days, on the Home Secretary's fiat.
I have summarised those provisions, not because I fear that the House needs to be reminded of them, but because it seems—to me at least— that it is necessary only to describe the powers that the Act contains in order to demonstrate the single point that I wish to make—that such powers are tolerable in a free society only if they are absolutely necessary, unquestionably effective and properly operated.
Had such powers been suggested to the House 10 years ago, when violence was already commonplace in Northern Ireland, I doubt whether they would have gained the support of 20 hon. Members. Yet what would have been literally intolerable in 1971 has now been tolerated for almost seven years. Of course those powers have been tolerated with the greatest reluctance. When Mr. Roy Jenkins introduced the original Bill, he said that it was


justified only by a wholly exceptional situation".—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 635.]
The Secretary of State for Energy, then an Opposition spokesman on home affairs, said in 1979 that he supported the continuation of the Act "with some unease". Last year, the present Home Secretary—with characteristic and admirable frankness—accepted that the Act included powers that "infringed civil liberties". The same libertarian point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South in every debate in which he took part.
In short, nobody likes these powers, but for six years they have been retained, and we believe that for their continual retention it is necessary for them to be justified in an objective way. To justify them in an objective way requires the House to recall the circumstances in which this Act's predecessor was originally introduced.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act is essentially the product of the Birmingham pub bombings. On the night of 28 November 1974, 170 men and women were injured by explosions in two Birmingham bars. Twenty-one men and women, most of them in their late teens and early twenties, were killed. Five of the dead were my constituents.
Early the following morning, with the then Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), I visited both public houses, or what remained of both public houses. The horrors that we then saw will remain, I think, with all three of us for the rest of our lives. They were only surpassed by the later anguish of visiting hospitals and talking to bereaved parents and the main victims of those two atrocities.
I am very well aware—perhaps more than some hon. Members whose constituents were not murdered on that occasion—of the feeling of anger and outrage that those two atrocities produced. Although some people have expressed regret about the feeling of anger, I make no apology for saying that at the time it was not only inevitable; in my view, it was right.
The Act which followed those bombings was, I think, the products not so much of the anger but of a common determination to prevent the repetition of such murders. But while I understand the feelings that moved the House and the country the following week—and in some ways moved the Irish community more than any other—I have to say that none of those who voted for the Act dreamt for a moment that what we were passing on to the statute book would remain in force for six and a half years. It has remained in force for so long because successive Home Secretaries made the judgment that it was necessary to continue it in order to combat the original threat.
That, I suppose, will be the Home Secretary's judgment again today. I understand, of course, as the House understands, that he must base that judgment on information which he is obviously unable to give to the House. All that he was able to tell us last year—this is not a complaint, but a simple description—about the continuing threat was encompassed in a single Hansard column. That single column simply listed crimes which were public knowledge. That inability to tell the House how his judgment has been made is—I repeat—unavoidable and inevitable.
This year, if the Home Secretary gives similar evidence, mercifully the list of terrorist crimes will be shorter than it was 12 months ago. I have no doubt that,

despite the merciful reduction in incidents of murder and mayhem over the last year, terrorism and potential terrorism continue to be a danger in this country.
I suspect that the Home Secretary will argue that, had it not been for the Act, operated in its present way, the level of terrorism in this country might have been much greater and the catalogue of crimes much longer. But I mean no disrespect to the Home Secretary when I say that that ought not to justify the House in feeling that we can renew the Act almost as a matter of routine.
It is no criticism of the Home Secretary's judgment—certainly not of his integrity—to say that a matter of this sort ought to be debated on much better information than, by the nature of the problem, he can provide for the House on an evening such as this in a single debate. Indeed, the Act can be renewed with clear conscience and certainty only when we are sure of a number of things that only an inquiry can provide, and when we have the answer to a number of questions that only an inquiry can give.
The motion which I commend to the House does not even call for an inquiry into the necessity for an Act. It calls for an inquiry into the operation of the Act—the sort of inquiry that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Shackleton undertook in 1978. I repeat that such an inquiry into the Act's operation seems wholly reasonable to me, and I must express my surprise that the Home Secretary cannot accept an essentially modest proposal. I hope very much that when he replies he will not rule out for all this year the possibility of an inquiry at some point.
I know that these things, through the machinery of Government and other complications, often take some time to agree with colleagues and to announce in the way that a Minister feels it appropriate for them to be announced, but I hope that the Home Secretary will not rule it out completely because he cannot give his approval to the idea today. I think that he must understand that the more often he and his successors seek to renew the Act, the greater is the duty of the House—not its right but its duty—to question not simply the operation of the Act but eventually its entire propriety.
Last year, the Home Secretary said that the sooner we can do without the Act the better. None of us disagrees with that. We echo the sentiment in two senses. The sooner terrorism is ended the better, and the sooner civil liberties are fully restored the better.
Today we are not pursuing either of the fundamental questions. We are simply asking the Home Secretary to provide a mechanism by which we can feel some assurance that the operation of the Act is acceptable to those of us who believe that the preservation of fundamental civil liberties must always be at the forefront of the considerations of the House.
All we are asking for is to be able to say, with absolute conviction, "We are doing our best to protect society from the murderous mayhem of the IRA and its like and to preserve essential rights in a free society at the same time." If we appear careless or casual about those civil rights, nobody will benefit more than the IRA and its friends. They will benefit because of the use—some people would call it the misuse—of the figures describing what has happened since the Act became law.
Let me remind the House of the most up-to-date figures that I have been able to obtain. Since the Act became law, 5,061 men and women have been detained under its


powers, and 579 have been charged with indictable offences. That means that 4,482 innocent men and women have been held without charge.
I know that many hon. Members on the Government Benches—and perhaps some on the Opposition Benches—will regard the adjective "innocent" as wholly inappropriate to the 4,482 men and women who were detained but not charged, but innocent they were under the law. The police may have believed that they supported terrorism or, more likely, the police may have known that they associated with terrorists. But in a free society, men and women who are known to have broken the law but who cannot be convicted under the law are imprisoned only in the most extreme circumstances. When that is happening, as it is happening now, we are really entitled to ask the Home Secretary to demonstrate that those extreme circumstances persist and that the problem could not be remedied by any other technique or by any other sort of operation.
I repeat for the third time—if the Home Secretary is to respond to my plea, it is important that he has it absolutely clear in his mind—that tonight the request of the Opposition is for no more than an inquiry into the operation of the Act.
Let me offer the Home Secretary some of the questions that we believe such an inquiry should answer, so that he may see that our proposals are in all ways reasonable and moderate. I offer three possible questions, though some of my right hon. and hon. Friends no doubt could offer others.
The first question concerns the purposes of detention. Are arrests made to prevent the commission of terrorist acts by the apprehended persons, or are they made to obtain information about others who might carry out such acts? I do not minimise the importance of information gathering in the campaign against terrorism, but it is important to know whether in present circumstances the Act is intended to bear directly upon those who would act as terrorists and promote terrorism or whether it is intended to obtain information which will help in the general campaign against such people.
Secondly, a whole range of questions about the operation of exclusion similarly need a clear answer. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary carries out the duties that the section of the Act imposes on him with the greatest care and the greatest reluctance. But there are questions which it is hardly possible for him and him alone to answer. Until last year's debate, 220 exclusion orders had been made. From those orders 37 people who had been so treated eventually asked advisers who answer to the Home Secretary to investigate their cases and make a recommendation to the Home Secretary.
Of those 37 persons on whom the advisers adjudicated, 18 had their orders revoked. We are entitled to ask the Home Secretary for an inquiry which, though it cannot be specific on the operation of exclusion in individual cases, assures the House that the Home Secretary is protected against inadvertent mistakes—for inadvertent mistakes amount to the exclusion of innocent persons. I say that not least because of the Home Secretary's own words on this section of the Act last year. He said:
exclusion is not an alternative to a prosecution; it is a supplement to it. If a prosecution can be brought, it will be brought".—[Official Report, 4 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 408.]

Therefore, by definition, the men and women who are excluded are innocent before the law. In such circumstance our obligation—I put it at its lowest common denominator—is to make sure that no mistakes are made.
Thirdly, I believe that an inquiry should investigate the operation of proscription of specified organisations under part I. The proscription elements in the Act are the parts of that statute which worry me the least. The IRA is clearly not a political party but a band of terrorists. It is absurd and unacceptable to allow collections to be made on its behalf in the streets or for donations to be made towards its activities. We need to be assured that that section does not operate in a way that prohibits legitimate political activity, no matter how repugnant is the political activity thereby prohibited, and applies to all the Irish and semi-Irish organisations on which it should bear.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence to suggest that parts I and II bear oppressively upon any legitimate party?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman exactly touches the point that I am struggling to make. By the nature of the problem we cannot have evidence. If the hon. Gentleman takes his mind back to the opening paragraphs of my speech, he will remember that I said that I realised that most of these factors have to be kept within the closed files of the Home Secretary. That is the nature of the Act. That is why an inquiry is necessary to demonstrate in appropriately secure terms how the Act is operating. I emphasise that I am not calling on the Home Secretary to give chapter and verse to demonstrate the matter as he sees it because I do not believe that that is possible under such an Act. Many of us believe that an inquiry is necessary because the evidence cannot be presented openly.
Opposition Members, especially on the Front Bench, have no doubt that terrorism remains a danger in our society. The real question that we are posing is not whether we should fight it, but how it can best be fought. I am conscious that anyone who expresses qualifications about what I call the accepted methods and established techniques which have now continued for six and a half years opens himself to the allegation that he is being soft on terrorism. I risk that allegation for three reasons.
First, I know with certainty that it is not true. Secondly, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland we shall have a lasting victory over terrorism only if we demonstrate our unqualified devotion to a genuinely free society. That is a practical reason for showing our concern. We must be able to say to the people questioning our commitment to a free society that, even in the face of a terrorist threat, we do all that we can to ensure that it is preserved to the furthest degree that its preservation is possible. That is the pragmatic reason for the inquiry. There is also a reason of principle.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act is manifestly a denial of civil liberties. It is essential that the House does not review it lightly or as a matter of routine. Because of that, if the Home Secretary feels unable to accept an inquiry, we shall divide the House at Ten o'clock. But, for my part and for that of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, if our motion is defeated we shall not vote against the continuation of the Act.
Each year that the Act is renewed we shall accept its renewal with increased regret and apprehension. Both the regret and the apprehension could be allayed by the


acceptance of an inquiry. I ask the Home Secretary with all the power at my disposal not to turn the idea down but to maintain the principle which we want to see. Where exceptional powers are used, the House must be certain of their absolute necessity. An inquiry would help to convince us of that any for those reasons would be wholly desirable and in the interests of the policy which the Home Secretary wants to carry out.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I want to make perfectly clear one point about procedures. I regard the operation of the Act, and so any defence of the need for it, as personal to the Home Secretary of the day. I hope that the House will allow me, first, to respond to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and, briefly, before 10 o'clock to reply to some of the points made specifically on the subject of an inquiry. Thereafter, on the debate on the renewal of the Act, I shall reply at the end to points made. If I make my points now, I do not feel that it will be necessary for me at 10 o'clock to make yet another speech to propose the renewal of the Act. I shall do that formally. I hope that by making three speeches and by replying to every point that is made I shall emphasise the importance that I attach to the debate and to the anxieties of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In one sense, the form of the debate takes us back to when I used to follow the opening speech from the Labour Party on the Act. This occasion is different from those earlier occasions, which in my case go back to 1976. The then Labour Minister who opened the debate asked the House to renew the Act. On this occasion the Government are being asked to set up an inquiry to review it. I have always seen strength in the fact that all parties in the House are united in their fight against terrorism, while sharing a proper regard for civil liberties. That is why I understand and respect the concern that lies behind the motion.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook for the way in which he put his case. I should like to say to him and to the whole House that it would never be any part of my argument to suggest that those who advocate the need for caring for civil liberties when discussing the Act were thereby soft on terrorism. That would be totally unworthy and unfair argument. I know some of those who have been resolute against terrorism, and, at the same time, rightly apprehensive about some parts of the Act.
No one wants the measures to stay on the statute book for a moment longer than is necessary. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, they infringe our shared concept of civil liberties. But that is the price which the House has always accepted must be paid for protecting the most fundamental liberty of all—the liberty not to be killed or maimed when going about one's lawful business. The right hon. Member referred to his experience in Birmingham before the Act was introduced. I have had similar experience over the years in seeing some horrific incidents. I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view.
I shall deal later, perhaps when renewing the Act, with some of the current threats from terrorism, but I should like to make one point now. No review of the Act, either in whole or in part, will diminish the threat that terrorism continues to pose to our most basic liberties. I do not believe that such a review at this time would have any

significant advantage. I have been in politics for too long—I want to go on quickly before anyone says "Yes"—to imagine that one is wise to rule out any action. Circumstances change and it is important to keep options open. Therefore, I do not rule out reviews, but I do not believe that a review would have a significant advantage at this time, and I shall explain why I take that view.
I mentioned earlier that the order of speeches takes us back in time. So does the motion. Hon. Members will recall that the powers in the Act and its subordinate legislation were examined exhaustively by the Shackleton committee only two and a half years ago. All but two of Lord Shackleton' s recommendations were accepted by the previous Administration and have been implemented by this Government. I find it hard to see what a fresh review of the Act's provisions so soon after the previous one would achieve. I hope that it will help the House if I illustrate what I mean by looking in detail at the provisions of the Act and describing the use made of them in the past year.
Part I makes it an offence to take part in the activities of a proscribed organisation or to collect funds for it. The only proscribed organisations are the IRA, including the Officials as well as the Provisionals, and the Irish National Liberation Army. I would not seek to argue that proscription of itself will necessarily deter hardened terrorists from operating, but it prevents those groups from publicly raising funds and from operating with any appearance of legality.
I emphasise strongly that the provisions are not intended to hamper the expression of political views about Northern Ireland. They have been, and can be, used only against those groups whose methods are violent and, therefore, unacceptable to the great mass of people throughout the United Kingdom.
Part II of the Act sets out the powers vested in me to make exclusion orders. I may do so only when. I am satisfied that someone is, or has been, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or is attempting, or may attempt, to enter the country for that purpose. A total of 269 people were excluded between 29 November 1974 and the end of February this year, including 49 since last year's debate.
I—or, in my absence, another Secretary of State—consider personally each application for exclusion. The information available is not such as to make the process of exclusion suitable for judicial review, but the legislation lays down the strict test to which I have referred and by which I am bound. must always take account of the adverse consequences for the person concerned of preventing him from entering Great Britain or the United Kingdom and, if I make an exclusion order, I am bound to be satisfied both that the person concerned has been involved in terrorism and that the safety of this country requires his exclusion.
As hon. Members will know, there is provision in the Act for an excluded person to make representations, which are considered by one of my independent advisers. The adviser examines the case afresh and may interview the excluded person. He then reports to me and I reconsider the case. Altogether, 43 people who have had exclusion orders made against them have had their cases reviewed by an adviser. As a result, 14 orders have been revoked. The figures for the past year are six cases reviewed and two orders revoked.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that an exclusion order cannot be made against a person who is ordinarily resident in this country?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am subject to correction, but I believe that to be correct. I shall check and if I am wrong I shall inform the House at the end of the debate.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The Home Secretary has given certain figures about exclusion orders during the past year. Can he say, now or later, how many people who are ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland have been excluded from entering Great Britain?

Mr. Whitelaw: I undertake to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of the debate. It is important that I should do so.
I should like to take the opportunity to express publicly my thanks to my two advisers, Lord Alport and Lord Underhill, for the speed and care with which they have dealt with cases referred to them. I also wish to express thanks to Mr. John Newey, QC, whose recent appointment as a circuit judge has obliged him to give up this task. I am pleased to announce that Mr. Hugh Carlisle, QC, has accepted my invitation to become an adviser.
The House will be aware that in March 1979 my predecessor announced that arrangements would be made to review all exclusion orders after a period in order to see whether they could safely be revoked. That was one of Lord Shackleton's recommendations. An order may be reviewed three years after it is made. It is for those eligible to ask for a review, though at the three-year point a letter is sent to their last known address informing them of their right.
Of the 105 people eligible to have their cases reviewed, 27 have asked for a review. As a result, I have revoked three orders and decided that 19 should remain in force. The rest are still being considered. In addition, six orders have been revoked for other reasons, making a total of 23 revocations since the 1974 Act came into force.
Part III of the Act creates, in section 10, the offences of contributing, receiving or soliciting contributions towards acts of terrorism and, in section 11, of withholding information about such acts. I recognise that section 11 is one of the most controversial provisions of the Act. It was Lord Shackleton's recommendation that it be allowed to lapse, which neither we nor the previous Government felt able to accept.
The House will wish to know the use to which section 11 has been put in the past year. After a bombing campaign carried out around Christmas 1978, for which the Provisional IRA said it was responsible, 25 people were arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Eleven of them were charged with an offence under section 11 and some, also, with offences of dishonesty. One charge was later dropped. At the trials of the other 10 in September and December 1980, eight were found guilty of an offence under section 11 and sentenced to suspended terms of imprisonment. There can be no doubt that terrorists can be aided as much by the silence of such people as by more active help. I accept that criticisms can be levelled at section 11, but my view, like that of my predecessor, is that for the present it must remain.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The argument against section 11 is that it is not used in relation to any other criminal offence in this country. If the Home

Secretary's justification for section 11 is in relation to terrorism it could equally be taken into account in relation to other serious crimes. Surely the real argument against section 11 is that we do not find it necessary for other crimes but we have it for terrorism.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument. I believe that the acts of terrorism and the conspiracies of those who seek to promote such acts are in a different category and, therefore, can and should be treated differently if we are seeking to prevent dangerous acts of terrorism. That would be my argument. I can see the hon. Gentleman's argument, but that is mine.
Part III of the Act also sets out the powers of the police, both inland and at the ports, to arrest people they suspect of involvement in terrorism. They can detain a person on their own authority for up to 48 hours. If they need further time for their inquiries they may apply to me or, in Scotland, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the period of detention may be extended by up to five days. These arrest and detention powers, particularly at ports, are wide, but it is clear that the responsible use of them by the police, whether or not resulting in a criminal charge or exclusion order, is an effective way of preventing terrorist activity in Great Britain. I should remind the House that the right to notify third parties and to apply for legal advice applies to anyone arrested under these powers as well as to anyone else.
It is some time since the House was told how applications from the police for extension of detention are handled, so it may be helpful if I explain them briefly. A small unit at New Scotland Yard, served jointly by officers of the Metropolitan Police and provincial forces, is solely concerned with handling matters arising under the Act. It has therefore developed considerable experience. This is important if consistent standards are to be set and maintained. It means that the police do not lightly put forward applications for detention. The applications are examined at a senior level by the police and are then carefully scrutinised in the Home Department before coming to me, or to one of my ministerial colleagues who personally decides on each application.
Since the 1974 Act came into force and up to the end of February this year, 5,101 people have been detained under its provisions, either inland or at the ports—515 in the past year. In 669 of those cases—120 in the past year—an extension of detention has been granted. To put these figures in context, I should point out——

Mr. D. E. Thomas: How many of those cases of people detained were not connected specifically with Northern Irish affairs?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall seek to answer the hon. Gentleman's question at the end of the debate.
I should point out that of the many millions of people passing through the major ports in Great Britain in 1980 only 441 were detained under this Act. Of the total number detained in the past year, 30 were charged with criminal offences, including murder, attempted murder, explosives and firearms offences and offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I would not, however, seek to measure the success of these provisions by the number of charges that follow detention. The result of detention may be an application for exclusion rather than a criminal charge.
In any case, as with the Act's other provisions, these powers serve an important preventive purpose. This is one


of the answers that I should like to give to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I believe strongly—and the police are also firmly of this view—that the likelihood of being apprehended and detained at a port of entry acts as a powerful deterrent to those who might otherwise come here to commit acts of terrorism.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Would the Home Secretary care to elaborate on the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) on 9 March? Unfortunately, my hon. Friend, who has consistently voted against the renewal of the Act, is unable to be present tonight because of illness. Why did the Home Secretary tell my hon. Friend that a central record is kept of the fingerprints taken of persons arrested and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act even when, later, these people have been released without any charges being made? What possible justification exists for such a gross infringement of the civil liberties of about 5,000 people? I always thought that one of the basic principles of British justice was that we assume a person innocent until he is proven guilty.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is fair to say, when we are dealing with terrorist incidents, that fingerprints may be valuable in examining various terrorism acts and various implications of them in the future. I consider that to be important. It is not something that should be lightly given away. Of course, I understand the feelings, but it is surely a matter of balancing civil liberties with the need to prevent acts of terrorism. Many of the people detained are released again. At the same time, we are entitled to take these provisions if we are in earnest in dealing with very dangerous terrorists and actions that can cause a great deal of damage and loss of innocent lives. I freely accept that it is a balance. [Interruption.] I do not find the matter funny. Innocent lives are an important matter. I am sure that this is accepted.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman is being helpful, but the point is that the people who are released are innocent. There is no question of guilt. The Home Secretary is saying that, on the judgment of the police, without any trial and conviction in a court, he has decided that they are guilty of an offence and, therefore, that their fingerprints should be retained. That seems to me wrong and contrary to the tenets of British justice.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I am doing what the hon. Gentleman says I am doing. In view of the point that he raised, I shall give a more considered reply at the end of the debate. The matter justifies a reply, but I believe that it is reasonable to retain fingerprints only for comparison with unidentified fingerprints from terrorist incidents. Any Government seeking to deal with this issue is entitled to make that comparison. It is important. I should have thought that keeping fingerprints only for that purpose was, on the whole, reasonable.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall give way, but it should be remembered every time I do so that insufficient time may remain for those hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate.

Mr. Flannery: The NCCL has naturally sent hon. Members a brief on this matter. It gives facts and figures. Does the Home Secretary know, for instance, that of 208

people excluded in Northern Ireland only one has been arrested and charged with an offence? In other words, the Act is so wildly astray that only one person out of 208 has been charged with an offence in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know quite as much as I know about the conditions and problems in Northern Ireland. If he did, he would not find the figures quite as surprising as he suggests they are. If he knew what happened on the spot, he would come to a different conclusion.
I hope that I have made it clear that the powers in the Act are exercised with care and restraint. I do not take these powers for granted simply because, annually, we have voted to continue them for over six years. The safeguards for individual liberty in the Act are real, and not cosmetic. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman in this connection. I certainly never suggested that they were, and considering the nature of the Act, a lot of trouble has been taken to make sure that there are safeguards. The independence of my advisers is effective. A decision to exclude must pass a strict test, and where a person is eligible and applies cases are reviewed, with great care. As the results show, I have no wish to keep someone excluded for bureaucratic convenience when he can demonstrate that he has turned away from terrorism.
The final responsibility rests with the House. I confirm that this is a temporary measure and, whatever Opposition Members may say about its becoming permanent, it is for Parliament to decide each year whether it should be renewed for a further year. No review body can take decisions under the Act. I accept, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that any amendments proposed by a review body would have to be considered by the House. But the task of making decisions is for me, and I am accountable to the House. No review body can take decisions about the need for the Act, nor is that proposed. No Home Secretary can decide; only Parliament can do so. The very fact that we are all here today discussing the Act shows that. I firmly believe that the powers in this legislation are both appropriate and necessary, and I hope that later tonight the House will support me in approving the continuation of the Act for a further year. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the view that the Opposition Front Bench will take in that connection.
I share the concern that the powers should not remain in force for any longer than is necessary and that they should be exercised with care and restraint. I am, therefore, willing to receive any submissions that Members of the House or members of the public may make to me about the powers contained in the Act, and any suggestions that they may have as to how, while the threat of terrorism remains, we should fight it. I shall consider all such submissions carefully. However, I say frankly that, in view of what I have said about the working of the Act and my clear offer to consider all representations, I cannot see what would be the purpose of another inquiry so soon after the last one.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I support the motion standing in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. My claim to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, arises in part from the fact that when the 1974 Bill was in the process of being formulated, and later when it was before


the House, I, as Attorney-General, not unnaturally played a substantial part in the consideration of the decision to initiate the legislation. Later, with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and the then Home Secretary, I sat on the Government Front Bench for the major part of the 17 hours of continuous discussion of the Bill before it became law. Like—I am quite certain—my hon. Friend the Member for York, I did so in many ways, with a very heavy heart. Indeed, there were parts of that Bill that I should have preferred, even then, not to support, in particular, the exclusion provisions. I believed that those provisions were quite unprecendented in peace time, unless one went back a couple of centuries. They seemed to me an extraordinary kind of sentence of banishment from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
They were not the only parts of the Bill that I found distasteful I accept, of course, that something was necessary in the circumstances, and that is why I supported the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Member for York, myself and others on the Back Benches, including a notable contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) were not alone, because the then Home Secretary said on Second Reading:
It cannot be without reluctance that we contemplate powers of the kind proposed in the Bill, involving as they must some encroachment—limited but real—on the liberties of individual citizens.
He went on—and I may have had something to do with the authorship of the next sentence:
Few things would provide a more gratifying victory to the terrorists than for this country to undermine its traditional freedoms in the very process of countering the enemies of those freedoms.
He ended his speech by saying:
I do not think that anyone would wish these exceptional powers to remain in force a moment longer than is necessary."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 634–42.]
He then explained that for that reason the Bill would expire in six months unless it was renewed by an affirmative order.
I said that I supported all that with a very heavy heart. I did so because of the situation to which my right hon. Friend refers—the carnage in Birmingham and other major incidents of a similar character which unhappily followed and with which we are all only too familiar. At that time there was a real fear and threat that that which we had unhappily become used to in Northern Ireland would spread further and further across the sea into this part of the United Kingdom. Those considerations led us, however much we deprecated the encroachments on civil liberties, to support the Bill, and no doubt led the House to give it an unopposed Second Reading. I have said that these exclusion provisions are provisions which, in peace time, have no precedent for a couple of centuries.
The other part of the Act which I find particularly distasteful is that containing provisions which give a much extended power to detain people on suspicion of being terrorists.
I have the gravest doubts about whether these provisions are consistent with our obligations under article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, except when war or public emergency threatens the life of the

nation. Such circumstances existed when the measure was passed. I have grave doubts whether such circumstances still exist.
The effect of the provisions, however humanely and sympathetically the Home Secretary administers them, is that people may be detained not merely for 48 hours or 72 hours—which could be justified in the context of trying to discover whether a person entering the country is known as a terrorist—but for seven days. Such a period must be justified before one can argue that it should continue. The longer the period involved the greater the risk of infringing article 5.
I have described the major issues in the legislation. It was passed in the course of a night in 1974, on the basis of bringing it to an end as rapidly as possible. Then it could last not more than six months. In 1976 we extended the period to 12 months. We have brought it into effect again at regular 12-monthly intervals.
Six years have passed since the inception of the legislation in the wake of the Birmingham carnage. Now we must ask ourselves whether we can still justify legislation brought in on that temporary basis in respect of a special situation which then existed, and if so, for how long we can continue to justify it.
I put a question to the Home Secretary for his consideration. Let us suppose that no such legislation was on the statute book. Let us suppose that the Home Secretary today had to consider whether putting such legislation on the statute book could be justified. He must consider that without the background of the Birmingham bombings and all the events of that time, including IRA active service units coming to this country to kill, maim and cause explosions, with economic, political and prestigious objectives. He must consider the position as it exists today. Could he possibly come before the House and say that there would be justification for introducing a Bill on the lines of the Act that is to be renewed? If he cannot say that in present circumstances, what can he say to justify the renewal of this temporary Act, passed in 1974 and renewed in 1976?
One talks about driving the thin edge of the wedge into civil liberties. Every time that we diminish and erode human rights and civil liberties, by however little, we drive a wedge into liberties and rights. When the wedge is left there it does not necessarily grow larger, but it sticks where it is so that it cannot be dislodged. The more often this legislation is renewed, and the longer it remains on the statute book, the easier it will be to say "Well, after all it has served a purpose. It has not done any great harm. Why do we not let it stay?" I am sure that that is not in the Home Secretary's mind when he says that an inquiry so soon after the Shackleton inquiry has to be justified.
Each year one must examine the position as it is and ask "Do the circumstances justify the renewal of that which was put forward on a wholly temporary basis in circumstances which are totally different from today's circumstances?"

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is against renewing the Act, rather than in favour of setting up an inquiry. He is departing from the position of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).

Mr. Silkin: I do not agree. My argument is clear and plain and I had hoped that it would be understood. If the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) does not understand, it must be my fault rather than his.
I am saying that when the Government come each year to seek to persuade the House to renew legislation of this character they must provide adequate justification for it. If the circumstances as they appear to be are wholly different from the circumstances in which the original legislation was passed, that justification must be particularly strong. I am not saying, and I could not say because I do not have the knowledge, that that justification does not exist. I am saying that there should be a sufficient inquiry to demonstrate that such a justification exists. For that reason I support the motion.
Not long after the Government of which I was a member took office we decided, for that reason, to set up the Gardiner committee to review the circumstances in Northern Ireland in relation to the emergency legislation. That committee performed an extremely valuable task. It proposed amendments which were accepted. From its experience, from the evidence that it took, and from looking at the position in Northern Ireland it was able to justify certain matters about which we might have had doubts in the context of human rights and civil liberties. Thereafter we were able, with a much strengthened approach and with a less heavy heart, to continue to accept in Northern Ireland derogations from human rights and civil liberties which otherwise might have shocked us. That is the reply to the question posed by the hon. Member for Grantham.
For that reason I hope that the House will support the motion for an inquiry. I hope that that inquiry will go further than merely into the procedural workings of the legislation. The Home Secretary, from a recumbent position, is commenting on my remarks. I am entitled to express my views, and I am doing so. Whatever my Front Bench may say, I am entitled to express my views. That is one of the privileges of the House, and I am exercising it.
The necessity for this legislation must be established. I want an inquiry on the lines of those conducted by Gardiner and Bennett, to delve deeply into these matters and establish—if it can be established—that, all these years after the Birmingham bombings and the other terrible events that gave rise to the legislation, we are still justified, year by year, in continuing it.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) that we must be satisfied that what have been called the draconian powers of the Act are justified. I do not doubt that everyone who has examined the provisions of the Act has done so with great concern. Clearly, the liberties of the individual are diminished by the powers contained in the Act. I regard the motion on the Order Paper as both serious and important, as I am sure the whole House does. Before dealing with the question raised by, and central to, the motion—namely, whether there should be an inquiry into the workings of the Act—I want to deal with the view expressed in the motion that the Act is temporary and that its wide-ranging powers should be exercised only if we are satisfied that they are essential to the defeat of terrorism.
The meaning of the word "temporary", although it may not accord with everybody's views, in the context of the

debate must mean that the Act should remain on the statute book for as long as the threat of terrorism hangs over the United Kingdom—and not for a day longer. No one can possibly argue that we are free from that threat, or that because—thank goodness—there have been fewer acts of terrorism we can be satisfied that it is no longer the threat that it was.
Is the Act essential to the defeat of terrorism? I believe that it is. We cannot avoid or dispense with it. We must examine its purpose, which is to prevent and detect terrorism in the United Kingdom, and to protect the innocent public against terrorism. In 1974 Mr. Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary, and after the pub bombings to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred, in which 21 people died and nearly 180 were injured, he described the powers as unprecedented in peace time and draconian. That was a proper and correct description. But he also said that it was right—it was right then, and is right now—that the main protection against terrorism should be the police.
The Government have a duty to provide the police with the powers that they require to deal with the exceptional and terrible problem of terrorism. The danger is that we can be so easily misled about the Act, and we must question whether it is working. We cannot test or judge its efficacy by mere statistics. Flow many people alive today might have died in acts of terrorism had it not been for that protective legislation? How many people have been saved from serious injury who might have been maimed in terrorist attacks if it had not been for the Act? That is speculation. One cannot answer those questions with any precision. No one can doubt that, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the Act is valuable in its deterrent effect upon those who might have come to Britain and been the nucleus of a terrorist brigade.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The rhetorical questions posed by the hon. and learned Gentleman are precisely those that need to be answered. Does he not agree that that is why we cannot assume the answers, as he and the Home Secretary appear to do? We must ensure that the necessary information, whatever is available, is made available to an impartial inquiry, which would be able to express a view about it.

Mr. Gardner: How does one give a precise answer to a speculative question? If all the information available was before us we could not possibly look back and say that we had saved 24 people in Birmingham and 100 in London from injury or death. That is absurd. Is it being suggested that if the information were before us we could examine the Act more easily and determine whether it was working well or badly? Lord Shackleton did that in 1978. He made a thorough if not exhaustive review of the workings of the Act. The terms of reference given to him by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) were that he should have particular regard to the effectiveness of the legislation and its effect on the liberties of the subject.
No doubt hon. Members and others have read Lord Shackleton's excellent report. It expresses only the view expressed by previous people, including Home Secretaries, who had reached the conclusion—with the knowledge that they had, which was no doubt denied to the House—that such legislation was essential and could not be dispensed with.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this legislation is temporary? Surely an inquiry that took place over two years ago is irrevelant. The Act has to be renewed each year and that means that it is temporary. We should be asking ourselves what is happening now and not what was found in an inquiry that took place two or three years ago.

Mr. Gardner: What is there in the circumstances of today—the threat of terrorism—that has changed since 1978, 1976 or 1974? The threat is still with us. I have tried to answer the question, "What is the meaning of temporary?" by saying that it covers period during which the threat of terrorism exists. Once that threat goes and we no longer have to live under the fear of terrorism, we can dispense with the provisions of the Act, but not before.

Mr. David Alton: rose——

Mr. Reginald Freeson: rose——

Mr. Gardner: I give way to the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson).

Mr. Freeson: If the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is sound and if, regrettably, we are to assume that the threat of terrorism in and from Northern Ireland is to continue indefinitely, are we to assume that the legislation will remain on the statute book while the continued general threat remains? That is not temporary legislation. It is not the existence of terrorism but the circumstances within a terrorist situation that gave rise to the Act.

Mr. Gardner: If the United Kingdom and its people are to be threatened, as they are now, by acts of terrorism, I think that I am expressing the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that the Act is essential. That does not mean that it will remain on the statute book indefinitely—one prays that some day the threat of terrorism will be lifted—but we are dealing with what is happening now. If the Northern Ireland problem were to be resolved—if one can imagine that happening within a short time—we could dispense with the legislation. Until it is resolved and until there is an end to the threat, we must be able to look for the protection that the Act provides.
There is the clearest distinction between ordinary crime, however serious, and terrorism. If the police seek to bring a prosecution, they must have evidence that will stand up in a court of law. It will not do for the police to act on suspicion and suspicion alone. Let it be conceded that suspicion, however grave, does not amount to proof.
When there is suspicion and we are dealing with terrorist activity—such a situation presents exceptional dangers and concealments that would not be present in ordinary crime—we and the police must have the type of powers contained in the Act. It is a matter not of proving people guilty of a particular offence but of protecting the British people from terrorists who are out to injure them. As a result, we need these powers.
It would be positively harmful and not beneficial if, as the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) appeared to suggest, we were to have an inquiry into the workings of the Act every time it came before Parliament to be renewed. I am happy to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that in the present circumstances an inquiry is not justified. I heartily agree.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The attitude of my party is not very different from that which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) stated on behalf of the official Opposition. We shall support the renewal of the Act in the Lobby, but we, too, have certain reservations.
The right hon. Member did the House a service in explaining that the Opposition motion was seeking not a root and branch review of the legislation—I appreciate that some of his right hon. and hon. Friends take a slightly different view—but a review of the operation of the legislation. Although that was stated in the wording of the motion, it was useful that the right hon. Member spelt out the meaning of the motion, because it had not been clearly understood in the House or outside the House.
As the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) reminded us, in a way we are debating the meaning of the word "temporary". I have in mind another "temporary", with which the Home Secretary will be familiar. That is the temporary direct rule arrangements which have been continuing for some time. As those are not irrelevant to this matter, and as we are approaching the tenth birthday of that other temporary legislation, I hope that the Home Secretary, who undoubtedly has much influence in those matters, will ensure that we do not go beyond the 10-year mark. This legislation must be retained until the need for it has passed and it is clearly seen that the threat to the United Kingdom has been removed. The threat has long since disappeared—if it ever existed—which gave rise to that other temporary legislation in 1972. It would do a great deal for realism if Parliament could be induced to dispense with it.
Like the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, we have no criticism of the Home Secretary and those who advise him when we say that we should not automatically perpetuate legislation of this nature. Otherwise, we would never make progress. It cannot be denied that strides towards normality have been made. My party has often taken the lead in advocating courses of action which were not clearly understood at the time and which were often not approved of, but we have made progress in Northern Ireland. We should continue to strive towards normality. If there is one thing which terrorists fear more than anything it is a restoration of normal, settled conditions. It has been proved over and over again in Northern Ireland that that means that people must work much harder if they are to disrupt society.
We co-operated, for example, with Lord Shackleton when he reviewed the operation of the legislation. We made our submission. I like to think that we did something to improve the lot of—I was about to say "our fellow travellers", but that might be misunderstood—the thousands of innocent people who have to travel in the course of duty or otherwise between the two parts of the United Kingdom. Notice was taken of our suggestions. We shall continue to keep the situation under review and will not hesitate to suggest changes where desirable.
We do not, therefore, object to an inquiry, as suggested by the official Opposition. We would be prepared to support the extension of a review to the whole of the United Kingdom and, for that matter, to other emergency legislation in operation in the United Kingdom.
The right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) reminded us that Lord Gardiner carried out what


I believe to be a piecemeal review of certain emergency legislation. Some good resulted, but there is much to be said for a comprehensive review of all the legislation in one operation in the not too distant future.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I rise briefly to support my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He said that if one were strong for civil liberty and the right of the subject it did not mean that one was weak against terrorism. I am glad that we are debating these powers at some length. Parliament has entrusted my right hon. Friend with terrible powers. We should give their renewal careful consideration.
The fight against terrorism is a fight in defence of the rule of law, so we must be scrupulous to ensure that the sword of justice is not tarnished. I see that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is in his place. My right hon. Friend will remember that we have been pestering him about a prisoner, now dead, who was convicted by an English court of a terrorist offence. We believe him to be innocent. If we can produce new material, as we are trying to do, we shall be pestering him again. I hope that he will not mind.
I served on the Standing Committee that considered the original Bill in 1974. Like other members of the Committee, I expressed anxiety at its undoubted abridgement of civil liberty. I believe that I have been present at every subsequent debate on this subject. Sometimes, there is a tendency to think that those who, like my right hon. Friend, have to bring forward such measures and have the unpalatable task of exercising powers under them are somehow less anxious for the liberty of the subject than Opposition Members, who do not have his responsibilities. Not all those who have been less than warm in supporting Home Secretaries and who apparently wish to divide the House have been regular in their attendance at the yearly debates on the review of temporary powers accorded to the Home Secretary. I was not aware that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who heads the list of signatories to the amendment—although he has been associated in the public mind with zeal for civil liberties—took part in any of our regular debates.
I was impressed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and I found myself agreeing with almost everything that he said, particularly when he said that we must not slip into a practice of renewing these powers as a matter of routine.
Lord Shackleton himself said in his report:
It is not sufficient merely to enact powers of this kind: they need to be subject to a continuing analysis.
I think that what is between us is the question of the best way to ensure that there is a continuing analysis. Lord Shackleton acknowledged that
the struggle to eradicate terrorism in this country might not be a short one".
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that the terrorist problem might continue for a very long time and asked how we could go on re-enacting on a temporary basis a statute which has been found necessary for so long. That is an interesting point, but surely it is better that we have a temporary measure and that we review it regularly in the House. That is surely a good thing. Just because terrorism continues, we should not

allow this to become a permanent measure on the statute book. I therefore did not find his argument persuasive. [Interruption.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Have I missed the point?

Mr. Freeson: Very much.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Perhaps the right hon. Member will be able to explain later exactly what the point was.
The question is how the continuing analysis is to be carried out. It is no small thing to mount an inquiry of this kind. The inquiry presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's predecessor in August 1978 was of considerable weight. It is not the kind of inquiry that one sets in motion every day. There may be a case for a larger inquiry somewhat later, but at the moment I am persuaded by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that it is too soon after the Shackleton inquiry for another inquiry to be held.
I am very glad that, as I understand it, there is to be no Division on the renewal of the temporary powers. I regret that there should be a Division on the question whether there should now be a new inquiry. My regret is simply that some comfort may be given to terrorists if the House is divided tonight. Terrorists exist on the hope that they will get their way and that they will weaken the will of the democratic authority that they are determined to destroy.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: I understand well the point on which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) concluded his remarks.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) indicated, there is a risk of misinterpretation by the community at large and particularly by terrorists and their supporters in any debate of this kind which logically and inherently carries at least the risk of there being a Division in the House. It is in the nature of the place. But that is not a sufficient case to argue against having such a Division if need be.
I said in a sedentary interruption that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) had not clearly understood the point which I made in an intervention to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument seemed to have the support of the Home Secretary, who nodded assent. That was the argument for introducing in 1969 the equivalent of a war-time emergency Bill.

Mr. Michael Mates: (Petersfield): No.

Mr. Freeson: Yes, because——

Mr. Mates: rose——

Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to make this point, I shall gladly give way.
We did not introduce this legislation at the outbreak of the spate of terrorism which started in 1969. We did not introduce it under a general threat of terrorism hanging over the United Kingdom. We combated terrorism, and rightly so, as vigorously as we could, and we should continue to do so, from whatever quarter it comes. We introduced this Act, as was eloquently and clearly argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), in the light of particular circumstances some


years later. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) shakes his head, but that is a matter of historic fact, not argument.

Mr. Mates: Yes, but there was no requirement for such an Act in mainland Britain in 1969 because there was no perceived threat in mainland Britain at that time. When that threat was perceived and seen to be actual in 1974 it was necessary to make quite different provisions from the emergency provisions which had already been made to cover Northern Ireland.

Mr. Freeson: The point has been clearly put, but the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. With respect, I was in this place and was interested and involved in Northern Ireland affairs, even though, as a member of the previous Administration, I was unable to speak freely on the subject. We are all aware that from the outset there was a perceived threat. At the time, I spoke to people in various cities. I have lived in an area where people have not been without conversation on this subject, even within London. There was a perceived threat and there was always a risk——

Mr. Mates: In 1969?

Mr. Freeson: Yes, from 1969 onwards, just as there was in 1938 and 1939. There were bomb outrages in London in those years. There was always a perceived threat and risk once there was a breakdown of law and order in the Province. That was understood in many parts of the country. It was understood in this place and it was understood within the then Government, just as I am sure it was understood by the then Opposition. There was a threat which broke out in those disastrous and terrible events in Birmingham, Aldershot and elsewhere.
Without going into detail on record, from time to time during those years certain hon. Members were advised to act in a certain way in the light of that generalised threat. As we know, only a few years ago one of our own Members tragically lost his life in terrible circumstances within the precincts of Parliament.
From 1969, a threat of terrorism was hanging over the United Kingdom. Tragically, it looks as if it may continue—we hope at a lower key—for some time to come. When I said "indefinitely" in an earlier intervention, it was in that spirit that I did so. It is not that I expect or want it to happen, but there is a possibility of its happening.
As the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde said, it does not follow that we should persist in this legislation simply in relation to a general threat of terrorism, any more than we thought it right to introduce it for that reason when violence first broke out in 1969.
The call for an inquiry into the operation of the Act is a constructive step forward, which the Government should have accepted in a positive spirit. It seems that the only argument that one could see from the Home Secretary's speech, supported by other Conservative Members, is that it is too soon after the last review of 1978. But to take that line is to assume that the fresh inquiry would concern itself simply with the administration of the Act and not, additionally, with the question of the existence of the Act. It is not the only question, but it is the most fundamental question that arises every year—whether the Act should be continued.
Frankly, I would have wished that we could go further than the Opposition's motion and oppose the continuation of the Act. I shall support the motion, but I intend to vote against the extension of the Act if an opportunity presents itself at the end of our proceedings tonight.
The Act should be repealed. It is illiberal. It undermines our civil liberties. I do not believe that the case has been made tonight—I do not think that it was made on the previous occasion, from my reading of the proceedings—that it serves a useful purpose in trapping terrorists. Other powers could equally or more effectively be used in combating the crimes that are threatened or actually committed by the terrorists concerned.
I listened with care to the reference to prosecutions some time ago which the Home Secretary adduced in support of continuing the Act. At first sight—this matter obviously requires more examination and probing, and again, an inquiry, if agreed to, could help—I should have assumed, listening to the Home Secretary's remarks, that the crimes for which those people were being prosecuted and of which they were found guilty and for which they were sentenced could have been dealt with under other legislation, under other police and State powers, rather than under this Act.
If I am wrong, that could be established only by probing the nature of the powers that were used and what alternatives were available to the authorities at the time. On the basis of what I have seen and read, I believe that other powers could have been used without the continuation of this Act.
I believe that this Act, if anything, in some circumstances at least could be counter-productive in the campaign against terrorism, in that after their experiences innocent people detained under the Act might well adopt a stance against police attempts to combat terrorism on behalf of the community at large.
The Acts run counter to the normal rights of individuals in law, even amidst a continuing terrorist campaign. Successive Governments have argued that the legislation is essential—not just desirable or helpful, but essential—in order to detect or deter terrorism. Not wishing to give succour to terrorists, the House has gone along with this year after year. Frankly, it is as much a fear—the hon. Member for Epping Forest came very near to saying this—of the general reaction that would set in if we now withdrew from the position taken up in support of this legislation in the past six or seven years, as much a general fear of how people would react to it, as a belief in the effectiveness of the Act, which has led us, year after year, to continue to pass it through Parliament. I believe that that is the position of even the most well-meaning of Ministers.
I do not disagree with the suggestion that the Home Secretary, on these matters is, as liberal as any of us here. That is not at issue. But in all situations such as this we are all at risk—the police and other authorities, the people in the Home Department and the Ministers concerned, and we in the House—of becoming institutionalised in our practices. Practices are begun and we find it easier and more convenient to continue them than to risk disturbing the pattern. I fear that we have got ourselves into that position.
I have no wish to give succour to these terrorists. The Provisional IRA are not simply and euphemistically nationalists, although some have described them as such. They are not "nationalists" fighting a just cause against imperialism—I almost quote the words that they


use—maintained by sectarian rule. Whatever may have been the case a long time ago, that is not true today. Many of the terrorists would be just as much at home, both politically and psychologically, in authoritarian Fascist movements. As anyone who has read or experienced their history will know, Irish politics has a history of such elements.
I hope that I have made my position clear, both politically and in terms of my general objection to murderous crimes. Whatever may have been the case in the wake of the horrific bombing murders and woundings in 1974, this legislation, far from helping, damages our efforts. Having studied the recent records, I see no evidence that the Acts prevent terrorism, deter those who would engage in violence or enable the police to capture such criminals more easily than under the normal processes of law and order. It fails to ensnare the guilty, but it endangers the civil liberties of innocent citizens.
It is a serious prospect that this "temporary" legislation looks as though it will become permanent in practice, no matter what language is used in defence of libertarian principles during our annual debates on this matter. The powers of arrest and detention are dangerously wide. As a result, the police have only reasonably to suspect someone in order to act. According to figures published a few months ago by the Secretary of State, in 1980 the total number of detentions was 537. Only 11 out of the 537 detained were charged with offences under the Acts. Since 1974, over 5,000 people have been detained under the Acts but only 70—as far as I have been able to establish—have been charged with offences under the Acts. Indeed, up to December 1980, 185 persons detained had been convicted of offences under other legislation—many of them charged with conspiracy to commit offences under the Acts.
Equally worrying is the power to make exclusion orders against those detained. The Home Secretary acts arbitrarily. The persons concerned have no recourse to the usual civil rights in law in this country. The Home Secretary—I speak not of his person but of his office—has too many arbitrary powers. Parliament should not allow any further extension of them.
One of the most disturbing arbitrary powers that the Home Secretary has concerns the tapping of telephones. Last year's White Paper and the recent, quite inadequate Diplock report did not even cover Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary told the House that tapping, in relation to Northern Ireland, was done under the "same conditions and safeguards" as applied in this country. Those conditions and safeguards are totally inadequate. The Home Secretary said that they were subject only to the overriding requirements for dealing with terrorism. In effect, that means that there are no safeguards for liberty or privacy.
I hope that the House will agree to the holding of an inquiry into the Acts. Such an inquiry should also cover the use of telephone tapping. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, telephone tapping lacks any parliamentary control or provision for accountability. Parliament should insist that there is express legal authority for such action, which should specify the criteria for the issue of warrants. A detailed annual report should be given to Parliament showing the number of telephone taps authorised in the previous year, commenting on the effectiveness of the

interceptions and detailing any changes in policy or procedure. That sort of approach should also be covered in any inquiry.
The arbitrary power of the Home Secretary in relation to tapping and exclusion orders under these Acts is an infringement of civil liberties. So is the power to detain people. These powers should no longer be allowed. The Acts do not stop terrorists, and such laws never will stop terrorists, whatever the necessity may have been in the special circumstances following the 1974 outrage.
Terrorism emerges from the political, social and economic circumstances in Northern Ireland, and only political, social and economic solutions there will ensure that the terrorists are defeated, as has already been said, although I would put a different interpretation on some of the points that were made. I should like to see a return to normality, but under somewhat different political circumstances.
The Government should concentrate on finding a political solution and not on continuing these Acts. The constitutional problems of Northern Ireland were horn of political action by a British Government and Parliament, and to resolve them will require political action by us again. To achieve this we must first intimate our ultimate intention to relinquish sole sovereignty over the Six Counties and to embark on a planned, constructive disengagement from the Province. When that proposition is accepted, discussions such as we are having tonight, and many others, will take a different turn.
That will mean discussion on setting up the kind of political conditions which will allow Irishmen—North and South, Protestant and Catholic—and others to work out a decent future. Any solution which does not start by recognising this is unreal. Until we give a commitment to this end, and the Republic also acts accordingly, there wall be no framework and no structure in which we can move away from the present position.
That is what we should be talking about ultimately, although at present we have to deal with this temporary legislation. What else are we to look forward to except a continuation of terrorism, a continuation of communal division, hatred and combat of one kind or another, and continued anti-libertarian legislation such as we have been considering tonight? The Act does not stop terrorism. In terms of civil liberties its continuation into semi-permanence is a dangerous development for all of us, and not just the Irish people.
This House, above all else, cares for democracy and civil liberties. Let it look at the facts of these Acts, and not our general fear about withdrawal of the legislation and the political reaction that it might produce. Let us look at the facts of the Acts, conceived as they were after the terrible bombings in Birmingham in 1974. The legislation was expedient then, but it has failed in more recent times in its avowed intention, and we should not allow it to remain in force. Let us have the inquiry by all means, but I hope that I have made it perfectly clear that my opinion is that we have a sufficient case for repealing the legislation now.

Viscount Cranborne: I am very pleased indeed to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), because although it is my pleasure to pay tribute to his evident devotion to libertarianism I find it breathtaking that he has managed


so far to ignore the reality and history not only of the last 10 years but of the last 800 years as to try to convince the House that a pious hope will resolve the difficulties that have confronted Englishmen, Irishmen and others for far longer than he said.
When I looked at the motion on the Order Paper it seemed to me that many of the sentiments expressed in it were eminently reasonable. Indeed, the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did nothing to disabuse me of that impression.
Everyone realises the great reluctance with which hon. Members—the right hon. Gentleman has been preeminent on the Opposition Benches—contemplate legislation of this sort. It is against the best traditions of our parliamentary life. Restrictions of liberties of the kind that the House has brought in with the introduction of the 1974 and the 1976 Acts run counter to everything that we all regard as essential to the democratic parliamentary life that is crucial to the future political health of the country. That is common to everyone who has spoken and to everyone who will speak hereafter.
Since the inception of the legislation all the evidence that has piled up from inquiries, from expressions of view by Ministers from both sides of the House and from both sides of the political divide, has shown how innately repugnant the legislation is to all of us. We were, nevertheless, forced to pass it in 1974 and to amend it in 1976, simply by force of circumstance. The force of circumstance we all know, but I suggest that what perhaps has not been given sufficient attention is why we were forced to do it.
There are many reasons. I shall pick out two of them. The first is the nature of terrorism. We are not talking, as some hon. Gentlemen have suggested, about the sort of crimes that are perpetrated daily in the streets of London and other cities, or even about violent crime—the sort of gangsterism that is increasingly prevalent in the streets of London. We are discussing a vicious, determined, political campaign waged by terrorist experts who have contacts throughout the world among their fellows, often encouraged and armed by the Soviet Union. This is not merely a gang of criminals; it is an army dedicated to the destruction of British rule in Ulster as expressed by the will of the elected majority of the inhabitants of Ulster.
That is a special circumstance. That army does not pursue its objectives by the use of methods that ordinary criminals use. It is highly organised. It uses cell systems and methods that need special measures to counter them. Compared with what the right hon. member for Brent, East suggested, those special measures can only be measures that are not covered by the legislation that we normally pass to counter criminal acts. The nature of the IRA ensures that special measures are required to ensure that we can defeat it.
If we investigate the record since 1976 and the Birmingham outrages, we find that it shows that the legislation has had some fairly startling effects. We have begun to see a decline in the amount of violence in Ulster, as the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) suggested and, thank God, the virtual elimination of violence on the mainland of Great Britain.
Let it not be forgotten that, despite what Labour Members have tried to claim, the threat of violence still exists. Surely I do not need to remind them that only

recently one man, Tuite, escaped from prison in this country and set off an anti-terrorist hunt, which is still going on. If that does not represent a threat, and if the authorities do not believe that such a threat exists, why were such panic measures taken? That is the first reason why I believe that we need such legislation.
The second reason is the threat to life and limb. I yield to no one in my support of the civil liberties guaranteed by Parliament, but the extraordinary measures that we have needed to put into operation to counter terrorism are necessary to protect potential victims of IRA outrages. Surely it is not up to the House to be so devoted to civil liberties that it cannot ignore their temporary suspension, in as small a measure as possible, in order to protect people who have been shown by the outrages at Birmingham, Aldershot and elsewhere to be at risk. If only because of the threat to life and limb, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has an awesome responsibility to take whatever measures he can to ensure that as few people as possible are maimed or killed by the IRA and the other banned organisations. That is justification enough for the Act.
On the face of it, the proposal in the motion for an inquiry seems eminently reasonable. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made a persuasive case for it and, in the normal course of events, I should be tempted to agree with it. However, there is an increasing volume of sound coming from the Labour Back Benches, especially below the Gangway, and from some outside the House demanding the withdrawal of our troops from Northern Ireland. Joined with that demand is an extraordinary campaign of vilification against the probity and compassion of the security forces.
An inquiry would cause an increase in that volume of sound. It would be used by the Troops Out movement and others who seem to want to override the expressed desire of the inhabitants of Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom. For that reason, the Home Secretary is right to resist the idea of an inquiry and it will be my pleasure to support him in the Lobby.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It came as no surprise to me to hear the Home Secretary say that he was not persuaded that it was right to set up an inquiry or to allow the Act to fall. It is much easier to take such powers than to get rid of them.
The Act has always been justified as a temporary power. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), I maintain that if the Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, had argued at the time that the likely period was six months, and for that reason it was introduced for only six months, it was clearly never intended to last for as long as there was a possible threat of terrorism. It was always inconceivable that the Northern Irish situation would be resolved in anything like six months after the bombing episode in Birmingham.
My reply to the interjection by the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) is that before the Birmingham bombings, there were a substantial number of bombings in this country. There was the serious bombing at the Army barracks at Aldershot, where there was a danger to life, and certainly a danger to property. There were the Guildford bombings. On a number of occasions the Government of the day—not only the Labour Government but the preceding Conservative Government—had considered whether a measure of this kind should be


introduced. I release no secret by saying that this measure was prepared by the preceding Conservative Government and was in existence, ready in case it was ever thought desirable to bring it in. Therefore, the argument that it was justified as soon as the first bombing arose, or that it could not be forgone until the last bomb had been exploded, falls to the ground.

Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point. I was arguing against the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), who said that if it was needed in 1974, why was it not needed in 1969? My point was that it was not needed in Britain in 1969. It became increasingly perceived to be needed with the preparations to which the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) refers. Birmingham was the final straw that made it essential. That is what one does when, as my right hon. Friend said, one is introducing a measure that is deeply repugnant in terms of the normal civil law of this country. We are not talking of normal times.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman argues against his case. He argues that so long as there is any perceived threat from terrorism we need this measure. What I am saying, and what is argued by the facts, is that neither Government thought that we needed it just because there were some terrorist outbreaks in this country. It was only the peculiar circumstances of the Birmingham bombing that convinced the Government that it had to be brought in.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) indicated that I was a member of that Government. I was, indeed, the junior Minister who spoke in the debate on the introduction of the Bill. I am bound to tell the House that I felt the same degree of regret as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich. More than that, I knew then—and I know today—that it was not the will of the police, as the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde suggested, that brought about the Bill. It was the reaction to the anxiety of the public that was generated by the Birmingham bombings. It was thought that this was the only possible response that could be made to allay that anxiety. I well remember the police advising us before we introduced the Bill that they did not think that it was necessary in order to counter terrorism. They may have changed that judgment since. Once one has the power it is too easy to go on to try to justify it. I doubt very much whether it is even now necessary to have these powers in order to counter terrorism.
The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) referred, so far as I can recollect, to the only incident of bombing in the last 12 months, thought to have been caused by the escaped prisoner Tuite. Tuite could be arrested under the general law. He is already an escaped prisoner. There is no reason to have these powers in order to deal with Tuite. That is where we need the balance.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde said that any attempt in a report to suggest that these powers were no longer necessary would be speculative. Equally, it is right to say that any attempt to try to justify these powers on the basis of possible terrorist activity that has not taken place must also be speculative. In the nature of things, it must be speculative either way. What the House has to do is to exercise a judgment. For myself, I do not think that I need some distinguished gentleman to come along with a report to tell me what my judgment should be. I have not voted against the retention of this Act in any year since it

was introduced. However, intend to vote against it tonight, because there has to be a stop to a temporary Act. There has to be an end, and in my opinion the end is now.
Three powers are involved. I am content that power should be retained to proscribe the IRA, although I doubt whether the power does much good. The other two powers concern me more. During the past six years 4,000 people have been detained, and no charge has been made against them. It is all very well for some hon. Gentlemen to argue that that does not mean that they were not guilty of anything, but there is no evidence to suggest that they were guilty of anything. If a person is not convicted by a court, he is innocent. That is not just a technical legal rule. It is a provision of our law precisely because if a person has not been convicted no one can be sure whether the person is guilty, apart from the person himself.
Such people are not proceeded against because there is not sufficient evidence to do so. To shrug off those 4,000 people as if it were some light matter, saying that they must be implicated in some sort of terrorism, is to fail to understand the degree of injustice that is caused to a man who is not guilty but is arrested and detained for a period. If the Home Secretary were locked up for seven days by the police because they suspected him of terrorism, and then released, I suggest that the Bill would not last a day longer. It would immediately be repealed.
We are putting away a number of people—about 12 people a week—for periods, varying from two days to seven days, so that the police can obtain some information—to take fingerprints, or perhaps for some other reason—and not because they have been convicted of a criminal offence. With that magnitude of discrepancy between those who are charged and those who are not, the House has a right to say that the balance has fallen too heavily against civil liberties. We have to balance the threat against the intrusion into civil liberties. In my judgment the balance falls heavily in favour of getting rid of the Act because it is an abuse of civil liberties and does not do much to safeguard people against terrorism.

Mr. Mates: What has changed the balance during the last 12 months?

Mr. Lyon: The change lies in the successive number of years in which this kind of discrepancy between the arrest of people who have been convicted and those who have not been convicted has gone on. It may be justified for one or two years, but it cannot be justified for six years, when the number of terrorist incidents has fallen considerably. If we accept the hon. Gentleman's view, the Act will go on until Ireland is at peace and there have been no bombings for 10 years. Then it will be possible to say that there is no threat. I do not want to minimise the sacrifice of civil liberties in that way.
Only in the case of the power to arrest can one make the kind of judgment that I have just made. Under the power to arrest, the police must either charge or release. The discrepancy, therefore, becomes visible. But in exclusion orders it is not possible to do that. There one relies entirely on the judgment of the Home Secretary—or one of his advisers. It is for him to say whether he thinks it desirable that the person should be excluded. Nobody else and no court has the right to judge. Nevertheless, 10 per cent. of requests for exclusion orders have been refused. The exclusion order has not itself led to a prosecution either here or in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that if no bombs were exploded for 10 years the people who want the Act renewed would still want to renew it? Their argument would be that it had been such a success that we should continue to renew it.

Mr. Lyon: I intended to make that point at the end of my speech. The justification for the exclusion is based upon intelligence gathering. Lord Shackleton made an interesting comment about intelligence gathering in paragraph 41 of his report, which states:
The intelligence material has certain strengths and weaknesses, as the police recognise. Some of them reflect limitations inherent to intelligence material generally … The police often find that the person concerned will say nothing at all to them. They realise that there can be several reasons for this and indeed the person concerned is not bound to say anything. But the police cannot rule out the possibility that he has been trained in what might be called 'anti-interrogation' techniques and that this may be an indication of involvement in a terrorist organisation.
If one exercises one's rights under the Judges' Rules and does not say anything, one can be suspected of being a terrorist because one has been trained in anti-terrorist interrogation. Such a dubious use of material is difficult to assess in relation to exclusion orders.
I had some experience in the Home Office of reading information provided by the security services in relation to particular types of responsibility. It is extremely difficult for a Minister to decide how he should evaluate the evidence. One does not know where it was collected, the strength of the witnesses who gave the information to the security services or whether it was based upon any bias. If one is using the judgment mentioned in Lord Shackleton's report, a case for exclusion could be made when it was totally groundless. In such circumstances, we must be extremely careful in deciding whether such a power is justified.
The real argument against the Act is that the longer we have this type of dubious legislation on the statute book, the more it becomes possible to justify intrusion into civil liberties in other areas. Northern Ireland has stained the good name of Britain throughout the world in relation to the maintenance of law and the pursuit of justice
When I go to the United States and talk about South Africa, for instance, people throw at me the legislation that we have found it necessary to introduce for Northern Ireland. People say that it indicates that we have forgone some of the requirements of the due process of law which hitherto we have maintained. This is one part of that total process. It is dangerous to keep the legislation on the statute book because it will be used as an argument to justify the extension of powers over a wider area.
The power allows an arrest for questioning for two days under the immediate warrant, or seven days with the authority of the Home Secretary. The Royal Commission on criminal procedure recommends that such power should be limited to 24 hours at the most, save in the most exceptional circumstances. If the Act is renewed year by year, somebody—possibly in the Home office—will argue that it is silly to limit the general power to 24 hours and that for serious criminal offences, as in the case of terrorism, it should be 48 hours. There will be an attempt to unify the two periods for the general purposes of serious crime.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde said that terrorism was so different from the general category of crime that it would always justify the retention and use of

excessive powers. I do not think that that is true. Obvious offences, such as the Birmingham bombings, are unique in their horror, but there are many cases of robbery with violence, murder and gang warfare that are immensely more serious than some of the allegations against those who have been locked up for terrorism. Not all of them are locked up for committing murder, but some are locked up on suspicion of having committed other offences. It is arguable that some of the normal criminal offences are at least as serious. An argument can be advanced that excessive power is required to deal with that.
We have always tried to keep the balance clear. Power should be given to the police only when it is justified to deal with existing danger. We should not give carte blanche powers to the police, because they will use them to deal with crime generally. If we were to give such widespread powers, it could allow the whole population to be fingerprinted. We came close to that today. The Home Secretary almost justified the collection of fingerprints to be used in future. He said that that would be justified on the ground that, at some stage, we might be able to prevent terrorist outbreaks. On that basis, we could prevent murder and robbery with violence.
Why do we not fingerprint the whole population? The Home Secretary appears to think that it is ludicrous that that practice does not exist already. If we were to introduce a Fingerprints (Temporary Provisions) Bill, the Home Secretary would justify it, it would become part of the law, and each successive Home Secretary would justify it for ever more. Because we did the unthinkable in 1974 the legislation is still on the statute book. We should do the thinkable now and get rid of it tonight.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: As always, I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). I profoundly disagree with the assumption from which his whole argument flows—namely, that in many cases terrorism is no more serious than other classes of crime. I wholly and entirely reject that proposition. Terrorism is more serious and much more dangerous than any other class of crime, most particularly because it exposes many innocent people to substantial danger of death or maiming. To suppose that that is true of other criminal offences is to harbour an illusion.
The hon. Member rightly said that the time must come when the Act should no longer be continued. He said that he thought that the time had come now. I could not help asking myself whether we would be having the debate in these terms if the hunger strikers in the Maze had died and if as a consequence there had been a massive bombing programme in these islands.
That goes to the essential nature of the problem. True it is for the moment that violence in Britain has died down, but true it is also that violence in Northern Ireland has not wholly abated. There are those in Northern Ireland who are anxious and willing to extend their campaign into Britain. So long as that remains so, to argue that the level of violence poses no threat because it is now so low is a total illusion. The danger could blow up suddenly. We could have one or two violent actions in Northern Ireland which would spill over into our great cities. If that happened, we should have to say to the House, "We need a Bill and we


need it fast". If that happened, I should blame Labour Members for countenancing arguments that have been advanced in the debate.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Act stops terrorism. It enables us to banish people from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. At present there are far fewer acts of violence in Great Britain than in Northern Ireland. If the Act is working here, why do we not banish people from Northern Ireland to Great Britain?

Mr. Hogg: I have never suggested anything so silly as that the Act prevents violence or terrorism. It does nothing of the sort. However, it gives the authorities, the Government and the security forces a useful instrument to combat terrorism. Of course, it cannot stop terrorism. Bloody-minded men will do bloody-minded things whatever law we have on the statute book. However, the Act is a useful instrument which we should be slow to lay down.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman suggested a moment ago that if at any time the special powers in the Act were allowed to lapse it would be necessary to bring in a new Bill to revive them. With respect, he is mistaken. It is perfectly possible to allow the special powers to lapse but to retain in the Act the power that allows them to be revived again if there were a further outbreak of terrorism.

Mr. Hogg: That strikes me as a dilatory process of getting measures back into action in the event of an emergency. There is no case for not renewing the Act and no case for seeking an inquiry into the workings of the Act.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) says—I understand the perfectly honourable motive that underlies his argument—that the Act is a serious derogation from civil liberties and that accordingly we should now mount an inquiry to establish the need for it. I do not agree with that approach. The hazard against which the Act is directed is so plain that it is for Labour Members to establish the need for an inquiry. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any evidence that any group was being oppressed by the terms of the Act. The effect of his flatulent answer was "No". I listened to speeches made by other Labour Members. I have heard no evidence that the Act's provisions are being abused.

Mr. Cryer: Wait until I speak.

Mr. Hogg: I shall wait for the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will speak at great length. I have great experience of the hon. Gentleman and I know that in the end his argument and his evidence will amount to nothing and that we shall pass on no wiser as a result of his contribution to the debate.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is making a judgment that is based on no evidence.

Mr. Hogg: I make judgments on the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) that are based on considerable experience. We never cease to hear his views, be they expressed on the radio, on the television, on the Floor of the House or in the Members' Lobby. I have considerable evidence on which to form a judgment, and I find him wanting.
Let us consider what we are being asked to inquire into. Questions are being raised on sections 1 and 2, which

proscribe certain associations. They provide that money must not be collected for certain associations. The sections provide that such associations must not be supported. The associations in question are the Irish National Liberation Army and the IRA. Why in God's name should the Government and this Parliament not prohibit such associations? They do not pursue democratic or legitimate activity. I do not see why people's associations with those two bodies should not be fettered.
Labour Members are silly enough to suggest that the objection to part I of the Act is that it enables the 'Minister to include in the schedule other organisations and that legitimate expression will thus be undermined. Although that may be a residual power within the Act, it cannot be used without the authority of the House. The House retains a supervisory function over who is or is not included in the schedule. Therefore, that is not a reasonable or proper objection.
I agree that, in principle, the exclusion orders are a matter of concern because they deny people a right of entry. The House must bear in mind the gravity of the threat. I do not believe that Opposition Members would care to underestimate the gravity of that threat; if they do, they will be rejected by their constituents. More important, an exclusion order can be made only in fairly narrowly defined circumstances. The Minister responsible for those decisions is the Home Secretary. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend. It is likely that I shall have respect for most Home Secretaries exercising those powers, which are exercised at the highest level and only in narrowly defined circumstances. On the whole, when I consider the threat, I am content with that.
The review procedure appears to be working fairly efficiently. Generally speaking—this has not been dwelt on at length by any hon. Member—the power cannot be used against British citizens ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. I am well aware that there are qualifications of that general statement.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member should read the Act before he calls us silly. It can be used against a British citizen ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, if he has not been resident here for more than 20 years.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member would do better, before he makes such interventions, to read the Act more carefully. It also deals with people born in this country, who have resided here ordinarily ever since, for whatever period. The hon. Member should do better than that. Generally speaking—that is all I suggested; the hon. Member should pay attention—the power cannot be used against British citizens ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.
I am aware also that in a number of cases the power might be used against people who, in some sense, have their home in the United Kingdom. That would be a matter for concern. I was hoping that Opposition Members would be able to point to circumstances in which that had arisen. I expected them to to say, as a result of correspondence with constituents, that Mr. So-and-So, who had been resident in the United Kingdom for 15 years or so, had been denied entry. I expected that, and had it happened it would have been a matter for concern. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would have considered it. However, we have had no such evidence.
In the end, that was the general tenor of the speeches by Opposition Members. They speak in liberal terms and generalities. In the end, we have had no evidence that the Act is being used in an oppressive or restrictive manner. That being so, there can be no case for an inquiry.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Front Bench speakers have been kind enough to agree to delay the winding-up speeches until 9.45 pm. Therefore, I am prepared to call one other speaker.

Mr. David Alton:: I disagree with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on a number of points. I fully accept what he said about acts of terrorism. He echoed the words of the Home Secretary, who rightly said that all hon. Members were concerned and alarmed about the use of terrorist methods by any organisation. Organisations such as the IRA should continue to be proscribed because of the methods which they use in this country and because of the deaths of innocent people which they have brought about.
However, the hon. Gentleman will agree that the measures were introduced in an emergency, after the terrible bombings in Birmingham in 1974, in response to an immediate danger. It was as the result of an act of revulsion that in a short time the House pushed through the measure. However, the Act should not consequently remain on the statute book for ever. The Official Secrets Act was rushed through in similar circumstances before the First World War. As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) warned about this Act, the Official Secrets Act has remained on the statute book ever since. Many of us have grave misgivings about that.
Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) stated:
there is a suspicion … that the powers of arrest and detention are used in practice when there is no reason to suspect that a person is involved in terrorism."—[Official Report, 4 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 428–29.]
The Home Secretary stated that balances and judgments had to be made. Last year my hon. Friend made the judgment to advise his right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain on the renewal of the legislation, but he did so with a heavy heart.
We have considered the matter further. This year we support the attempt of the official Opposition to have the legislation reviewed. It should be reviewed in the cold light of day and a considered judgment should be reached on the evidence. However, failing that, we shall be forced to vote against renewal of the legislation, with a heavy heart and reluctantly, if the call for a review is not heeded.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that Northern Ireland's problems needed long-term solutions. Continuing the legislation and leaving the military in Northern Ireland is not the long-term answer. Rather than perpetuating the legislation, we should study long-term solutions.
The Act has set up a system of informal exile in the United Kingdom, as arbitrary as that maintained in Tsarist Russia or, indeed, in the Soviet Union today. The Home Secretary has been given the right to impose arbitrary, executive punishment on the basis of secret evidence. The

suspect has no right to know or to challenge the evidence against him and no right to a court hearing. People have been subject to nightmares that make the works of Franz Kafka seem like sober documentaries.
Nowhere has the Act been used more heavily than on Merseyside. Of 5,061 detentions authorised under the Act between November 1974 and the end of December 1980, 1,221—nearly one-quarter—were on Merseyside. In only 71 cases were extensions of detention granted, a much lower proportion than in either the Metropolitan Police area or Dumfries, the two other areas where the provision is most used. In fact, only 6·8 per cent. of the people detained throughout the United Kingdom have subsequently been charged with a criminal offence.
The hon. Member for Grantham asked for evidence. Hugh Leekey arrived in Liverpool on 15 November 1979. He was due to sign an eight-month contract of work with the Ocean Fleet line. He was detained for 24 hours, lost the work and had to return to Belfast without compensation or apology. In a subsequent incident in Liverpool, three men who arrived from Dublin in February 1977 were detained for 45 hours without proper reason and, in two cases, without the chance to contact their wives. The case is before the European Commission of Human Rights, which has accepted that there is no domestic remedy for abuse of the powers.
It is arguable that the Act infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, for example, in article 5, the right to liberty, article 6, the right to a fair hearing, article 8, respect for private and family life, articles 10 and 11, freedom of expression and assembly and article 14, prohibiting discrimination in the protection of those rights on the ground of national origin.
My noble Friend Lord Wade recently tried to introduce a Bill of Rights in the other place. The hon. Member for Grantham will be aware of the support for that Bill from a member of his family. The legislation would have incorporated the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and removed the necessity for much of the legislation that we are dealing with tonight.
The Act needs to be reviewed. There is need for stiffer resolve from the House not to allow self-styled emergency and temporary provisions to become permanent. In introducing the measure in 1974, Roy Jenkins said that we all wanted to see an end to the measure as quickly as possible. However, every year an ill-attended, 90-minute debate is sufficient to prolong it.
Of course, we must oppose terrorism in all its manifestations, but legislation against terrorism cannot be allowed to act as a cloak for general infringements of the liberty of the subject. The way in which society treats minorities—whether they be black or old, disabled or Northern Irish—is the touchstone of its claim to be civilised. The accountability of the institutions that it establishes for their protection is the key. An annual 90-minute, or three-hour, debate is inadequate accountability. We need an inquiry. We need in future to be allowed to re-approve the Act section by section, rather than having to take it or leave it.
The Liberal Party will vote tonight with the Opposition for a review of the Act. If that vote is lost, reluctantly we shall have to vote against renewal of the Act.

Mr. Hattersley: With the leave of the House, I wish to make a further brief contribution. I understand that at


10 o'clock there will be what might in another context be called a natural break in our proceedings. I wish first to assure the House that I shall not attempt to intrude again in the debate when we resume, as resume we must, after the Division.
I wish to say just two things in response to the Home Secretary's speech, which was made two hours ago. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) will, I hope, forgive me if, in so doing, I do not follow him, except to say with what pleasure I noted that his speech returned the debate to the calm accuracy that had characterised our discussion before the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) made his contribution. I put that aside, however, and make one point to the Home Secretary, for one point it is.
If the Home Secretary cannot accept the Opposition motion, as I fear from his earlier speech is the case, I make a simple request of him. When he returns to the Home Office I hope that he will consider with great care the arguments for coming to the House at some subsequent date with proposals of his own for the kind of inquiry that we have proposed. I urge that upon him for three reasons.
First, nobody who has heard the debate or who may subsequently read it could imagine for a moment that the call for an inquiry reflects any moderation of the Opposition's attitude towards, and detestation of, terrorism.
Secondly, the House has shown a unanimous view that the prosecution of the war against terrorism must be continued as effectively as possible.
Thirdly, however, throughout the debate there has been an equally obvious and almost unanimous concern about the denial of civil liberties which every hon. Member who has spoken has agreed is involved in the continuation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
What the Opposition wish to see, and what I think sensible Members on both sides of the House wish to see, is a reconciliation of both necessities—the war against terrorism and the support and protection of traditional liberties.
As the matter stands, the House is presented with a stark choice. It may vote for or against the continuation of the order. I do not believe that it is in anybody's interest that that should be the only choice on this subject presented to the House tonight—or, more importantly, in a year's time.
Rather than asking the House to choose for or against continuing the provisions, it would be much more sensible from every point of view—and particularly, if I may say so without being patronising, from the Home Secretary's point of view—to offer the House the opportunity to make its own judgment about the possibilities of reconciling what is necessary to defeat terrorism with what is necessary to protect our proper liberties.
If we are not offered the chance to judge whether that reconciliation is possible, inevitably—and, I think, properly—the House will slowly turn towards the outright choice of rejecting renewal. I think that that is right and in the best traditions of the House and its proper role of protecting the liberties of the individual subject. I therefore say again to the Home Secretary that the best course for him is, to some degree, to blur the choice between the two necessities and to give the House the chance to evaluate the two needs to see whether they cannot be reconciled.
That is why my final word in this brief speech is like my first. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot agree with this motion tonight, I hope that he will consider whether he

cannot agree with it in the future—if not within days or weeks, then in months—and certainly before next year, when the House will have to choose whether or not we should continue with the PTA.

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall seek to respond to the right hon. Gentleman at once. I should like to put that response in the context of some of the other things that have been said during the debate, because they are important to the attitude that I shall take.
I wish to make it clear once more, that at this stage I do not feel that a review, so soon after Lord Shackleton's, would be profitable. But of course I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. I shall consider whether it would be right to put forward proposals of my own for another year. I am prepared to do that. I make that perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman because he has been totally consistent in his view, a consistency that I have not found elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman does not wish to vote against the renewal of the Act now, but wishes a review to be undertaken of how it works to see whether it can be improved.
I understand and respect that point of view. The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to realise that some hon. Members who have spoken tonight will not be satisfied by such a review, because they have already made up their minds about what they will do. They are determined to vote against the renewal of the Act. It is partly for that reason that it is important to make it clear that at this stage I could not accept a review. I shall consider it and respond positively. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a definite undertaking, but I shall do just that.
I now turn to a different point of view, which was put by many right hon. and hon. Members. I wish to answer some of the points that they made. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was quite plain, as always, and I respect him for that. He said that I do not need a distinguished man to tell me what my judgment should be. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman, but that view was reported to me, and I do not think that I have quoted it inaccurately. Therefore, no review will be any good to the hon. Gentleman, because he does not want it. He has made up his mind and has decided that we should not continue with the Act.
The right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) explained why he cannot be present. He said that the Act was passed in circumstances that were totally different from those of today.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Hear, hear.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying "Hear, hear" from his normally sedentary position. Perhaps he has forgotten certain incidents that occurred only three months ago. Would the hon. Gentleman be saying "Hear, hear" if, for example, the bombs at RAF Uxbridge had caused the casualties which they well might have done had it not been for distinguished action on the part of those concerned? He would not be saying "Hear, hear" had that happened. The circumstances would then not be so different.

Mr. Kerr: I have consistently supported an almost identical point of view to that of the Home Secretary. Therefore, he is being a little naughty in upbraiding me. I am sorry if I have offended him. I am very much in favour of the general line that he is pursuing, but I am


totally against the indefinite renewal of these powers. On those grounds, I intend to vote against the right hon. Gentleman tonight.

Mr. Whitelaw: Fair enough. I think that I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, had it not been for distinguished and excellent action, there might have been a considerable disaster at Uxbridge. Had that been the case, I do not think that the former Attorney-General—the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich—could have said that the circumstances were so very different from what they are today. Frankly, they would not have been.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall not give way again. The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) has a perfectly simple answer to the proposition. He wishes to pull out of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Freeson: No.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is what I understand the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Freeson: rose——

Mr. Whitelaw: All right. If the right hon. Gentleman did not——

Mr. Freeson: Read Hansard tomorrow.

Mr. Whitelaw: Very well. If the right hon. Gentleman did not say that, I apologise to him at once. But he is perfectly plain and clear in saying that he does not believe that the Act should be renewed under any circumstances.

Mr. Freeson: Stupid man.

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly clear that the Act should not be renewed under any circumstances, and I must accept his view that he does not believe that it will in any way be valuable.
I must return to the important matter about which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke. He talked dismissively about a 90-minute debate. I made certain—I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving it—that there was considerable extra time for this debate.

Mr. Hattersley: It was given by the Opposition.

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I know—it was time that the Opposition owed to the Government. I happen to know that. I have been a Chief Whip, and I understand the facts of the case, so I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can say it in that way. The extra time has been given, and the hon. Member for Edge Hill dismisses it.
The hon. Gentleman is in a curious situation. He wants a renewal, but if he cannot get a renewal he says that he must vote against the Act. I cannot understand the logic behind what he is saying. Perhaps he can understand it. I do not see the logic. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) says that he wants a renewal and wants an inquiry, but if he cannot have that he is prepared to renew the Act. The hon. Gentleman says that he is against terrorism, but if he does not get the inquiry he is still against renewing the Act.
If the hon. Gentleman is against renewing the Act, I must tell him that he is taking great risks in the context of terrorism,

and I think that he must accept that point of view. If he does not accept it, I must return to the point about Uxbridge, which I think is fair, and about Hammersmith, and to many of the acts that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Iain Paisley) mentioned in raising various points about the temporary provisions legislation, which I understand. After all, I had some part in introducing it, though it was not quite, I think, on all fours with what we were discussing tonight.
Many actions have taken place in Northern Ireland—for example, the murder of the late Speaker in Northern Ireland, Sir Norman Stronge, which horrified many people, including all of us who knew him. These are actions by people who have said that they are determined to come to the mainland to proceed with their particular campaigns of terror. That is what they have said. There has been very little reason over the years not to believe them when they have said that they are determined to pursue various acts of terrorism.
If I am asked whether I believe that this Act helps to prevent terrorism from coming back to this country at a difficult time, when there are still many acts in Northern Ireland and some in this country, I must say that I do so believe, because I believe that the powers in this Act are a considerable deterrent to those who would seek to come, as some do, to pursue their acts of terrorism in this country. If the Act does that, it is a very important Act to have on the statute book.
I have made clear my worries about the Act. I have responded to the right hon. Gentleman. But if I am finally asked, at this moment, bearing in mind what is happening in Northern Ireland and what has been threatened in this country, to take away from the police and from the people of this country, by an act of this House—that is if the House were to take it away—[Interruption.] I am talking to those who do not wish to renew the Act. I have accepted the point of view of people such as the right hon. Gentleman and others who want to renew the Act. I am talking to those who do not want to renew the Act. I am entitled to do that, and I shall do it again, because I cannot believe that such action would be in the best interests of protecting the people of this country.
I have responded and said that I will consider again the possibility of an inquiry, but if I were to concede it now, so soon after that of Lord Shackleton, I believe that I would be acting against the best interests of the people of this country. That is why I have decided that I could not have an inquiry at present.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 189.

Division No. 109]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Clinton(Hackney C)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric


Beith.A.J.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Dempsey, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dormand, Jack


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Dubs, Alfred


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Canavan, Denníis
Eadie, Alex


Carmichael, Neil
Eastham, Ken


Cartwright, John
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
English, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M (B'stol S)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Concannon, Rt Hon J.D.
Evans, John(Newton)


Cowans, Harry
Field, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Fitt, Gerard


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Flannery, Martin






Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Palmer, Arthur


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Foulkes, George
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Race, Reg


Freud, Clement
Radice, Giles


George, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Golding, John
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Ted
Robertson, George


Grant, John (Islington C)
Rooker, J.W.


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Roper, John


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Haynes, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Heffer, Eric S.
Sandelson, Neville


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Sheerman, Barry


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Home Robertson, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Homewood, William
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hooley, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Horam, John
Snape, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Stallard, A. W.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Steel, Rt Hon David


John, Brynmor
Stoddart, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kerr, Russell
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lamond, James
Tilley, John


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Tinn, James


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


McCusker, H.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Watkins, David


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Welsh, Michael


McKelvey, William
White, Frank R.


Maclennan, Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)


Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woolmer, Kenneth


Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Molyneaux, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Newens, Stanley
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. George Morton and Mr. Hugh McCartney.


O'Neill, Martin



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bulmer, Esmond


Alison, Michael
Butler, Hon Adam


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bendall, Vivian
Cockeram, Eric


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Colvin, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cope, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Costain, Sir Albert


Biggs-Davison, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Blackburn, John
Critchley, Julian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Crouch, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dover, Denshore


Brown, Michael(Brig &amp; Sc'n,)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Browne, John(Winchester)
Dunlop, John


Buck, Antony
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Mr. Clive Soley: I should not like the last debate to pass without congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on giving the House far more time to discuss this important issue than we have had previously. The horrors of terrorism always and understandably provoke a tough reaction from society. The bombs in Birmingham, like other bombings here and in Northern Ireland, not only killed people but maimed others for life and brought misery to the friends and relatives of the victims. That misery will go on for the rest of their lives, even among those who were not maimed or killed, simply because they are close family friends or relatives.
In the past few months I have had two bomb explosions in my constituency of Hammersmith. That is a matter for serious concern. I have said on other occasions that I think that the best policy in Northern Ireland for everyone, including the Protestants in the North, is to move towards a federal united Ireland with safeguards for minority groups. There are disputes about that view, but I have held it for many years, since long before the present troubles broke out in 1969.
The use of terror to achieve unity or any other purpose in the Province or on the mainland is totally unjustified. I am also of the view—in passing—that it is counterproductive. The existence of the IRA has in no small measure led to the development of the UDA. In many ways that is unjustified. Well-organised and sensible peaceful protests would have been just as effective in achieving reform in Northern Ireland, although the actions of other Administrations in Northern Ireland played into the hands of the paramilitary groups. Ultimately, the solution must be political and not military.
The point has already been well made—I do not wish to dwell on it—that the Act was meant to be temporary. The temporary period is becoming dangerously long. The powers are draconian. That phrase was used by the Home Secretary when the Act was originally proposed in 1974. I think I am correct in saying that everybody agrees with that. However, I shall dwell on the impact on civil rights.
We rightly condemn moves in the Soviet Union such as the expulsion of Sakharov from Moscow to another part of the Soviet Union. I recognise that the reasons for doing that in the Soviet Union are different from the reasons here, but the force of this country's voice for human rights is diminished by the fact that we have a similar type of power operating in the United Kingdom, regardless of the difference of reason. The effect on civil rights is dramatic.
The argument that I wish to put, with as much force as I can, is that, whatever view one takes of Ireland and the future of Northern Ireland, it is in the interests of all the people of this country and Ireland to oppose the renewal of the Act. I argue that because the creation of the Act was one of the victories of the Provisional IRA. Along with internment and other such measures, it was seen as a victory by many Provisional IRA supporters.
To understand that, we need to look at the philosophy of terror in revolution and the use of terror. The philosophy

is not new—it has been around for at least 100 years and traces of it can be found long before then. I have been impressed in the past 10 years by the clarity with which the philosophy of terror has been spelt out and copied around the world from one writer, Carlos Marighella, in a book which has been used extensively by terrorists here and elsewhere called "Mini-manual of the Urban Guerilla".
It is worth reading from that book to emphasise my point. Carlos Marighella says:
The government has no alternative except to intensify repression".
Of course, that is the object of the terrorist.
The police networks, the house searches, arrests of innocent people"—
with all that that implies in the Act
and of suspects, closing off streets, make life in the city unbearable. … The armed forces … are mobilised and undertake routine police functions. Even so they find no way to halt guerilla operations, nor to wipe out the revolutionary organisation with its fragmented groups that move around and operate throughout the national territory persistently and contagiously. The people refuse to collaborate with the authorities"—
I shall come back to that point shortly
and the general sentiment is that the government is unjust, incapable of solving problems.
That was written for a South American situation, and Carlos Marighella was killed in an anti-terrorist operation in 1969.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Did that writer, or another, not also say that if, through fear, the Government fail to take action, the guerrillas will win anyway? Do they not fear most that the Government will take reasonable steps to safeguard law and order in the community, and is not the Act a reasonable step?

Mr. Soley: I am aware of that argument and I shall come to it. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with what I say, perhaps he would like to intervene again.
In sum, the aim of the terrorist is to force the Government to take increasingly repressive powers to combat the terror, and particularly against those whom the terrorist claims to represent. I shall say later that the Act is directed primarily against the group which the terrorists claim to represent.
Because the Government were forced into panic reactions—though I do not describe the Act, which followed the Birmingham bombings, simply as a panic reaction, though to some extent it falls into that classification—there resulted a degree of repression, and a political problem was turned into a semi-military problem.
Historically, terrorism does not have a good track record in terms of winning power for the terrorists themselves. In many cases, it has failed or been counterproductive. Perhaps the best example if the Tupamaros in Uruguay who managed to produce a result the exact opposite of what they wanted. That is not unusual.
I should like to give another quotation from General Richard Clutterbuck, a British Army general witing on the same problem and to some extent looking at Marighella's writings. He said that the terrorists
are anxious to force their governments to adopt measures so repressive that they will arouse discontent amongst liberally-minded people
and that the Government have


no option but to use repressive measures. Liberal forms of law are made unworkable by intimidating witnesses and juries, so that more arbitrary forms of law have to be substituted.
An example is the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
`Disruption, damage and loss of life reach a scale which compels the government to introduce curfews, roadblocks, searches and mass arrests. This harassment starts the process of discontent with the government. It is continued by bombing which destroys places of work and deters investments, so that unemployment is increased. To use Marighella's own words, the aim is to make life 'unbearable' for ordinary people, and `transform a political situation into a military situation'.
Richard Clutterbuck makes the point that the chief enemy of the terrorist is the liberal reformer—an important point in the context of this debate. He says:
Thus, like all revolutionaries he regards his chief enemy as the liberal reformer. To maintain his image and not to alienate possible future allies, he must pay lip-service to Popular Front movements, but in elections his real hope may be that the 'Man of Order', the 'Man of Right', will gain power and provide the repression he seeks.
I advise the House to take careful heed of those words. They are relevant to our discussion because the Prevention of Terrorism Act plays into that role. The Baader Meinhof group and the Red Brigade in Italy have argued similarly. The Baader Meinhof group said words to the effect that they must force the West German Government to strip away their mask of social democracy and force them to act in a more repressive way. Every time that we pass an Act that has the effect of repression, especially against those whom the terrorist seeks to represent, we play into the hands of the terrorist. We should bear that point in mind with some care.
If it could be shown that the Prevention of Terrorism Act had been used primarily against terrorists, it could possibly be justified. There is a case for such measures as a last resort, but only if they bear most heavily against terrorists and only in certain other circumstances to which I shall refer.
I should like to read another quotation from "Urban Guerrilla Warfare". This states:
From its original role of keeping the peace between the Catholic and Protestant communities, the British Army moved over to an offensive intended to root out the IRA as a fighting force. Although the new tactics produced military results, they helped to polarise opinion in Ulster and enabled Catholic critics to represent the army as a repressive force. In this sense, IRA terrorism succeeded. It led to a situation where the British Army, which began as the referee between the two communities in Ulster"——
hon. Members who remember the early days of that involvement can remember the British Army being welcomed in the Catholic areas——
appeared as a party to the quarrel. The chaos it engendered helped to postpone the application of social reforms designed to get to the root of the problem and thus eroded Catholic faith in solutions within the existing framework.
Another success, of the Provisional IRA was to get the British Army into that situation, which in the early stages of the involvement was not the case. That, again, was a success for the terrorists. It is my aim to defeat terrorism. One does not defeat terrorism unless one understands its purpose and philosophy and acts accordingly. When we take the Prevention of Terrorism Act, we take a blunderbuss. It is a singularly ineffective weapon. It is not effective. This damning evidence has already been given. Of 5,061 people detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 4,482 were neither charged with any offence nor excluded from Britain. Of the other 579, only 70 were charged with offences under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
It is clear—it has been said by one or two Conservative Members—that the value of the Act is in the collection of information. I have no doubt that it is valuable in that sense. By constant cross-examination of people, it is possible to discover their contacts and where and when they last saw them, thus building up a picture of the movement of the people in the area. So, in that way, it is a useful Act.
However, there are two problems. The first is that that purpose is used to justify the actions of any police State. That danger has already been mentioned. However, there is another aspect to which we have not paid enough attention, and it is the other side of the same problem. The Act has been one of the best recruiting sergeant-majors for the Provisional IRA that has yet been invented.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It has not done very well.

Mr. Soley: I am not so sure about that. The conviction figures in the Diplock courts show that the majority of the people who appear there have not been in trouble before. It suggests that the Provisional IRA still has no real difficulty in recruiting.
The Act fails in three ways. First, as I have just said, it recruits people directly into the Provisional IRA as a result of their own experiences or of the experiences of friends and relatives. Second—perhaps of more importance—it increases the number of their sympathisers. In cases where people are picked up, held and cross-examined intensively for a long period but no charge is preferred, and the person—rightly or wrongly—presents himself as innocent, it creates the impression among people who are not involved that their community has been picked on wrongly. It increases the number of sympathisers in exactly the same way as the bombs that exploded in Birmingham created in those who were not directly concerned a feeling of anger against the terrorists.
Third—and this is of particular importance—the Act devalues or undermines the desire of the minority community to co-operate and to support the authorities for precisely the same reasons as I have just given—wrongful arrest or arrest when nothing happens as a result of cross-examination. Whatever else they can say, they cannot say with confidence that the British authorities are protecting their people. They feel that their people are suffering. All the evidence is that if one feeds the idea that the authorities are coming down more heavily on one group than an another, one is working along the lines that Carlos Marighella spelt out as a terrorist philosophy. As I said, that philosophy was not expounded by him in the first place, but it was expounded most clearly by him and it has been followed by many others since, both in Europe and elsewhere.
The temporary provisions are not only in danger of becoming permanent—or semi-permanent, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said—but are eroding civil rights in a serious way and devaluing this country's voice abroad when calling for civil rights in other countries. Above all, in being used against the wrong people and in the wrong way, they lend support to paramilitary organisations, and particularly to the Provisional IRA. I therefore urge the House to oppose the measure on those grounds, regardless of the 'views of the individual on Ireland.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: My right hon. and hon. Friends supported the motion calling for an inquiry, but there should be no misunderstanding about our reasons. We do not believe that there should be any lowering of our guards against terrorist activity and the continuing threat of it. Our vote did not signify any complacency or moral weakness, faced as we are by deadly, clandestine groups in our midst.
We have witnessed in recent years the growth and spread of internationally linked terrorist organisations throughout many countries in Western Europe. That must be combated with all the combined social democratic strength that the various Governments can exert. I pay tribute to the police and everyone else involved in Britain in counter-terrorist work which has been pursued with courage and determination. But for them, many more innocent members of the public would have been maimed or murdered.
In my view, the press and the media generally do some harm, perhaps unwittingly, in creating an aura of glamour and respectability around the activities of some terrorists. They should be projected not as people with a cause but as violent men engaged in criminal conspiracies and criminal acts.
My right hon. and hon. Friends wished for a review and fresh legislation, unencumbered by the debris of past years. The Government should have accepted the need for that and recognised that we have not had a satisfactory debate on the issues involved and the powers conferred since the measure was introduced seven years ago and barely amended a year later.
By any criteria it was an extraordinary measure, regarded as such at the time by the then Home Secretary, whose personal commitment to civil and constitutional liberties is beyond question. It was considered by him as a temporary measure which we would all wish to discontinue as soon as possible. It has not been possible to do that. In a continuing abnormal situation, it will not be possible to abandon some such powers. The nation would not forgive us if we simply reneged on our responsibilities.
The very abnormality in a democratic society of the present administrative powers conferred on the Executive calls for constant rigorous review and scrutiny by Parliament. The House is being denied that this evening. The Government's attitude reflects a casual indifference. Perhaps I put it too highly. It certainly reflects a measure of indifference to our concepts of democratic control over Executive action. We condemned that with our vote a few minutes ago.
Year after year, successive Home Secretaries concede the repugnant nature of powers which they and we know to be alien to our traditions and to long-established laws and procedures, such as exclusion orders—which, as Lord Shackleton reported, involve no judicial proceedings, no charge, no trial or court—arrest without warrant, extended detention and interrogation of people whom the statistics show to be, for the most part, quite remote from any conceivable offence and uninvolved in any type of terrorist association. The orders also involve an offence unknown to our legal system and concepts of justice—namely, withholding information. They are exercised quite

arbitrarily, and all have kinship more with totalitarian regimes than with government subject to the will of the people.
Powers of this nature, however carefully exercised by Secretaries of State, lend themselves inevitably to abuse, error and the maltreatment of the innocent. As others have suggested, they can even prove counter-productive. We have heard of instances of maltreatment and error involving innocent members of the public from those who have participated in the debate. That is a shocking state of affairs. It is intolerable and it should not be accepted on the basis of the ends justifying the means in the sort of society that we seek to preserve.
When justice itself is offended, the law is brought into disrepute. That creates a mood of cynicism and defiance. I have no doubt, too, that the way in which these powers operate induces genuine grievance and a sense of community slur among many loyal and law-abiding British citizens. I have many constituents of Irish birth and origin, people who loath and condemn terrorism and violence of any sort, and I know that many of them feel honest resentment at the nature of some of these powers.
It may be that certain of these powers will have to be renewed, always reluctantly but in the public interest. Other powers may have outlived their usefulness and some may be shown never to have had a deterrent effect or preventive value. If that is so, they should be discarded without further delay. Arbitrary measures are sufficient of an affront in themselves without permitting their unnecessary renewal.
The time has come when the House should exercise its own authority and decide on the basis of the full inquiry for which we ask, which will, we hope, be forthcoming on the basis of the Secretary of State's assurance in his closing remarks. The House should decide whether and to what extent each specific power is properly required in future.
In our view, there are vital issues of principle at stake, not least the rights of Parliament itself, and for that reason Social Democrats voted against the Government on the motion. We shall not vote against the renewal of the Act. I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Where are they?

Mr. James Lamond (Oldam, East): Name them.

Mr. Sandelson: If the Secretary of State fails to reappraise and to accept the position that we have urged this evening, we, too, may have to reconsider our position should he return to the House for a continuance of these powers yet again.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The remarks by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) were not a good start to the policies emerging in the new centre party if it cannot make up its mind which way to vote on the order. It is absurd to abstain on a matter of this importance. I cannot see how anyone, with the best interests of this country at heart, can oppose the renewal of the temporary provisions in the Act.
As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the use of the Act is a balance—a balance between the prosecution of the war against terrorism and the sacrifice of civil liberties. We must ask ourselves whether the threat of terrorism still exists. The


answer must be that it does. The outrages continue in Northern Ireland and people continue to be mutilated and murdered. In those circumstances, the House has no option but to give the security forces the fullest possible support in catching those people and keeping security close at heart. There have also been bombings in London. Therefore, it is obvious that the IRA is managing on occasions to export its terrorism to the mainland, as the Home Secretary said. We must ask ourselves why it does not do that more often.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Labour Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), thought that there was no question of ending the legislation while the Provisional IRA was engaged in violence? That was the view of the member of the Labour Administration responsible for those measures.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. However, we must observe dramatic changes in the Labour Party as it comes under the influence of some of its more extreme comrades. No doubt this is yet another example of that.
We must ask ourselves why the IRA does not operate on this side of the Irish Channel more often, because in anybody's language the targets must be regarded as much softer. The problem for the IRA is that it is rejected by the Irish communities in this country. The activities of the Special Branch are extremely vigorous and many of the potential sympathetic groups which might support it have been infiltrated.
We have a Prevention of Terrorism Act which gives great powers to the security authorities in this country. They are able to control people coming here. It is well known that many of the activists in Northern Ireland can be recognised as such by the security forces, but it is difficult for them to get convictions. That would account for the fact that a number of people have been arrested but the number of prosecutions has been relatively small.
If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed to review the Act now, it would be considered to be a weakening of resolve by the Government. It is important that we should show no weakening of our resolve to combat terrorism and to reduce the amount of crime being committed in the name of the freedom of the Emerald Isle. If we were to wait and renew the Act after some outrage, that could only be seen as shutting the stable door after the event. Therefore, I urge all hon. Members to support the renewal of the Act with vigour and determination.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Once again, I rise to voice my opposition to the Act, as I have done since it was first placed on the statute book.
I do that not because I have for one second any sympathy with the IRA or other terrorist groups which have wreaked such havoc in Northern Ireland in particular and, indeed, in this part of the United Kingdom. I am not frightened or intimidated by the IRA. I am opposed to the Act because it is counter-productive. The normal legal processes of the country are sufficient to apprehend and imprison people found guilty of terrorism. "Draconian" was not an exaggerated description when it was first used by the then Home Secretary. It has been repeated many times since. Over the years, we have seen how draconian and repressive the legislation is.
I am 55 years of age and probably the oldest Northern Ireland Member. Ever since I was born, we have had repressive legislation in Ireland. The special powers legislation was enacted in 1922. The Act was renewed every six months, three times in succession. It was then renewed at yearly intervals until 1929. The Unionist Government, with their overwhelming majority, then decided that is should be there for all time.
Repressive and draconian as that legislation was, this Act advances repression even further. In 1972, the special powers legislation was taken off the statute book. It was immediately replaced by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. Then, in the wake of the Birmingham bombings, this Act was introduced in 1974. Two repressive Acts apply to Northern Ireland.
Did the 1922 legislation lead to a fair and just society? Did it bring the two communities together? Did it help people to get jobs and houses and to live a better life? No. It built up frustration, animosity and hostility, which led eventually to the civil rights movement being set up in 1968 which in turn led to the downfall of the whole Stormont structure.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman was castigating the old Stormont Government for enacting legislation to deal with terrorism. Was not similar legislation enacted in the Dail to deal with terrorists in the Irish Republic? During the war, Mr. De Valera introduced courts martial to try Provisional IRA terrorists, who could be sentenced and executed without right of recourse to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Fitt: It is not my function tonight to defend the Government of the Irish Republic.
For about eight years in the 1930s, we had no overt acts of terrorism. People were too concerned to obtain food. It was the hungry 'thirties. We had hunger marches in Belfast of Protestant and Catholic unemployed, and perhaps they could be equated with acts of terrorism. The special powers legislation was not necessary in those years.
How long does one wait? Does one wait eight years, 10 years or 20 years before one decides that it is safe to abolish the Act? In the 1940s, there were a few IRA incidents at the beginning, but for eight out of the 10 years there was no need for the special powers Act. The same applied in the 1950s and in the 1960s. How long does one wait?
It is my impression that once a Government have these powers in their control they are very reluctant to give them up, particularly today, when many people in the United Kingdom will not be surprised if there is social unrest as a result of unemployment rising from 2 million to 3 million or even to 4 million. This Act would certainly come in handy if events took place which did not satisfy the Government in power at the time. The Act is always there, it can always be extended, and it could be used to deal with such a situation.
I have always strongly opposed exclusion orders. I do so once again with just as much vehemence, because no one can fully justify the secrecy which surrounds them. We are told that information is given to the Home Secretary and that he then makes up his mind before signing his name to an exclusion order. I have serious doubts about that. I do not believe that any Home Secretary, whether Conservative or Labour, has the time


or, indeed, the anxiety to go into all the facts of an exclusion order that is placed before him by an official. He will ask the official "Do you think this fellow should go or not?" and then sign his name. Like any civil servant, he will sign his name to the document presented to him.
I say that because I know people who have been the victims of exclusion orders. I have known those people all my life. They are not involved in terrorism, nor have any of their families ever been involved in terrorism. Some of them live very close to my own home. I mention in the House the case of a merchant seaman who was subjected to an exclusion order. All I can do is to pit my knowledge of the family and the person concerned against that of the Home Secretary. I have made personal representations to successive Home Secretaries. I told them that they could take my word on the subject. I was not going to advocate the case of an IRA member to keep him in this country, or anywhere else for that matter. I would not support anyone of whom I did not have sufficient knowledge. If I had the slightest suspicion that the person was in any way involved in terrorist activities, I should have told him in no uncertain terms—as I have done on many occasions—to get out of my home and away from my door.
When I am absolutely convinced that the person has not been involved, however, I write to the Home Secretary and go in person to see him. The Home Secretary, whoever he may be, tells me that perhaps I do not know everything and that he has seen the papers. What do I do then? Do I simply accept the word of the Home Secretary, whoever he may be? I am caught. Moreover, the person who has been wrongfully excluded will naturally feel that he has been the victim of an unjust system, and, as has been rightly pointed out, he and his family may then begin to build up bitter resentment and hostility towards the authorities which promulgated the order in the first place.
There are instances of this every weekend. If the order has to be enacted, it should be operated with a certain delicacy so that fewer people are inconvenienced or harassed by its provisions. Yet every week when a football match takes place in Scotland people from Northern Ireland travel on the ferry from Larne to Stranraer to see the match. Some, indeed, go to matches in England, but I take the specific example of matches in Scotland. The police at the port seem to have a remarkable facility for picking up young lads going to a football match who just happen to live in Ballymurphy, in the New Lodge Road, in Turf Lodge, Andersonstown or the Bogside—in other words, Catholic areas. The policeman will immediately say "You come from a Catholic area, so you must be a supporter of the IRA."
Such lads are arrested getting off the boat on a Saturday morning or coming back on a Saturday evening. It seems—I speak from experience—that all the policemen in Belfast and the policemen in the detention centres in Liverpool, and particularly Glasgow, all go home for the weekend. I am never off the telephone, making representations. I am told "We close down for the weekend, and the interrogation officers will be coming in again on Monday morning."
It is unjustified that just because the policemen go home for the weekend someone should have to lie in a cell. Shackleton recommended that the detention cells should be better than they were then. I am not sure what facilities

are provided now in the detention cells, but, whether or not they are hotel-type cells, people should not be there just because there are not enough police available, whether in Belfast or at the port where those concerned are detained.
The Home Secretary said tonight that he did not like exclusion orders. He said that he looked at appeals and added that he had no wish to keep excluded a person who could demonstrate that he had turned away from terrorism. How does someone convince the right hon. Gentleman that he has turned away from terrorism? Can the Home Secretary tell us tonight that he has been convinced by a subsequent appeal that someone who was excluded has turned away from terrorism? The people whom I know who have come under exclusion orders have never been involved in terrorism in the first place.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and I have been involved for nearly a year in the case of a person who died in prison, Giuseppe Conlan. Other persons were convicted at the same time—including Mrs. Maguire, Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Smith. I am convinced that they were not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted.
This legislation does another thing. One can be charged under all the other Acts on the statute book and have a chance of being found not guilty, but if one is charged under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act one's chances of being found not guilty are less, because there is a presumption of guilt if one is arrested under the Act. Naturally, there is a great deal of emotion attached to the Act. People are ever mindful of why it went on to the statute book, in the wake of the terrible, brutal, callous Birmingham bombings. If we ask even the most illiterate people in this country why the Act is on the statute book, they will reply "Because the IRA bombed Birmingham", though they would not know the reason for any of the other criminal legislation. There is a feeling that anyone charged or arrested under the Act must be at least half guilty.
That was the atmosphere when Giuseppe Conlan and the others who were charged with him were sentenced. I have raised the matter on the Floor of the House and have gone on deputations to the Home Secretary. I have written letters and tried all the other normal methods of raising the matter. I repeat that there are in prison people who have been there for a number of years, but who are guilty of no offence. I call on the aid of my colleagues in the House tonight, because I am convinced that those people are innocent.
The IRA and the INLA are banned under this legislation. When it first came before the House, I put down an amendment to ban the UVF and the UDA. It was rejected. Even though I put down that amendment, I was convinced that the legislation would not do all the great things that people thought it would do. If we are to have this type of legislation to ban organisations engaged in Irish terrorism, we must be seen to be impartial. We cannot be seen to have this legislation in operation against one section of the community in Northern Ireland.
Members of the so-called Ulster Defence Association have been convicted of terrorist crimes in Britain—in Scotland; crimes of arms running. They have not been convicted of committing in this country the kind of heinous offences of which members of the IRA have been convicted, but in Northern Ireland the UDA and the UVF have been guilty of even more heinous crimes. Even


within recent months the UDA has almost admitted that some of its members were guilty of some brutal and callous murders.
If we must have the proscription of one organisation, why not proscribe all terrorist organisations? In Northern Ireland some idiot has gone on television and given himself the fancy title that Eisenhower had during the war. He calls himself the supreme commander of the UDA—no less. He has never worked a day in his life, and he is the supreme commander. He tells the world "I have 50,000 men at my command, and that scares the life out of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland". That scares the Secretary of State—"He has 50,000 men. That is far too many, I am afraid to ban them".
Numbers alone and the threat of numbers should not be allowed to change the Secretary of State's mind or to frighten or intimidate him. If those organisations are engaged in terrorism and murder, they should be proscribed just like the Provisional IRA. If we are to use this law, we must use it against all terrorist organisations.
I am no spokesman for Irishmen found guilty of terrorist offences in this country and sentenced to prison terms here. They should finish their sentences here. But Englishmen or UDA men found guilty of crimes in Northern Ireland can say "We do not like the atmosphere here. There are too many Republicans in gaol". Then they get transferred to a prison of their choice somewhere in the United Kingdom. People who commit murder should all be treated in the same way. Prisoners should not be transferred from one part of Ireland, just because it does not happen to suit them, to another part of the United Kingdom. Prisoners should stay where they are convicted. There should not be special category status for the UDA or the UVF or for the IRA. I make no distinction.
Recently in Northern Ireland three soldiers, a sergeant, a private and a captain were found guilty of a brutal and savage murder in County Fermanagh in 1972. The sergeant and the private were sentenced to life imprisonment, but the captain received a two-year suspended sentence. He got off free. I believe that he is still in the British Army. I hope that that is not so, but there is some question about his being allowed to remain in the Army. The other two were convicted of the brutal murder of two innocent people in County Fermanagh. Those prisoners did not like going to gaol in Northern Ireland, so provision was made to transfer them back to England. We should not do such things. We should treat every convicted murderer in the same way.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: When the hon. Gentleman said that those convicted of crimes should not be able to go to prisons of their choice, did he mean that the Price sisters should not have been transferred to Armagh?

Mr. Fitt: I did not advocate the transfer of the Price sisters. That is why I can stand here and say that the two soldiers who murdered people in Fermanagh should not be transferred. At least, I am consistent. If I had advocated the return of the Price sisters, I should not be able to stand on the Floor of the House and say that.

Mr. Sandelson: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, will he make it clear to the House that the captain to whom he referred played no part in the offence committed by the other two men and that his only offence—if it was one—was to withhold information?

Mr. Fitt: I am delighted by that intervention. According to section 11 of the Act, it is an offence to withhold information. Even if section 11 and the whole of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act did not exist, if anyone in any circumstances withheld information about a murder he would, in my book, be committing an offence. I say that regardless of whether such a provision is on the statute book. That case has caused a great deal of discontent in Northern Ireland.
If the Government want to maintain the credibility of the British Army and of its operations in Ulster, they should not allow that captain to remain in the British Army. From 1972 onwards, he knew that two of his colleagues had committed murder. They would not have been caught if it had not been for the "Ripper". Someone suspected that one of them was the "Ripper"—the man responsible for killing so many women. The case came to light only as a result of an anonymous telephone call. That captain should not be allowed to remain in the British Army. If he were to remain, the British Army would be in great danger of losing its credibility.
This legislation is counter-productive. It causes great inconvenience to many thousands of people of Irish descent merely because they have an address in a Catholic area or speak with an Irish dialect or brogue. That is racism at its worst. The colour of their skins does not matter. This legislation affects many Irish people who travel to and from this country. Indeed, it affects those who have lived in this country for many years.
It has been said that a citizen of this country cannot be excluded from it. Nineteen years ago, a fellow from Belfast came to live in Southampton. He met a Southampton girl and married her. He has four or five children, who all speak with delicious Southampton accents. He was suspected of having done something although he was not charged. The authorities told him to go back to Belfast. He had been away from Belfast for years and had never been there on holiday. However, the Home Secretary signed an exclusion order. It broke up his marriage.
The Southampton girl and her children tried to live in Belfast. They tried to live in a completely alien environment. She took the children and returned to Southampton. Her husband is still in Belfast. I am not sure whether he will appeal to the Secretary of State. If he does, I hope that the Home Secretary will consider the case. That man has convinced me that he has never been involved in terrorism.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has rightly condemned the Army captain who was aware for a long time that two subordinates had committed a murder. He kept that information to himself and said that he had done so in order to preserve the good name of the British Army. Will the hon. Gentleman follow the logic of what he has said? It was only because of section 11 that that captain committed any offence. Surely it is unacceptable that such an Army officer should not be made the subject to a criminal charge.

Mr. Fitt: I fully support what my hon. Friend has said, but I have already said that where an Army captain or any person, in or out of uniform, is aware of such circumstances, it is his moral duty to report the matter to the police. An Army officer should do so also for the sake


of the good name of the regiment. I am not denying that it was said that the man involved was an excellent soldier, but——

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should like to understand precisely what he is saying. Is he making the accusation that the Act is being administered partially against the Roman Catholic minority of Northern Ireland, or is he saying that it is being administered against the whole of the population of Northern Ireland without distinguishing between the Catholics and the Protestants in that country?

Mr. Fitt: Although the Act overlaps into Northern Ireland, it is used mostly in this part of the United Kingdom. If we were to go through the 5,061 detentions, it would be found that the vast majority were Catholics. I am quite certain of that. If the Act were used against ordinary, decent, law-abiding Protestants in the same sorts of circumstances, I should be just as opposed to that. In the majority of cases, however, it has been used against Catholics in a very harassing way, and only recently I have been in touch with the Home Secretary about a case in Birmingham.
I shall be voting against the approval of the order tonight. Some people in Northern Ireland may regard it as inconsistent on the one hand to want to erase the Act from the statute book and on the other hand to wish to add the name of the UDA. I do not think that that is at all inconsistent. While the Act is on the statute book, it must be clearly seen that all its provisions are directed against every terrorist organisation. They should all be brought within its ambit.
I still believe that the Act has been on the statute book for far too long without review. There should be a continuing review of the Act, from one week to the next, without the need to employ any extra civil servants or police. What happens is that some executive looks at it and then it is forgotten for two or three years before it is looked at again. As long as it is done in that way, the Act will never be taken off the statute book. This country cannot claim to be the great protector of civil liberties and human freedoms that it has been in the eyes of the world as long as the Act remains part of British legislation.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. As the debate can last for only one and a half hours, the Front Bench speeches will start at 11.30 pm.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I know that several hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) put a very emotional case and tried to suggest that the order is aimed only against Roman Catholics. I know of cases in which Protestants have been subjected to the provisions of the Act, so that it cannot be said that its application is one-sided.
The Act will cease the moment the Provisional IRA ceases its campaign of terrorism, which has already resulted in the slaughter of over 2,000 people and the

mutilation of over 25,000 people in Northern Ireland. The sooner that it brings its evil campaign to an end, the sooner we can have peace and decency in the country.
When the Prime Minister went to Washington a short time ago, she was met by demonstrators supporting the Provisional IRA who carried placards saying "Brits out of Ireland". Yesterday was St. Patrick's Day. If St. Patrick were to return to Ireland and landed in County Antrim, as he did over a thousand years ago——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No, no.

Mr. Kilfedder: If he landed again in Antrim, he would be met by people with placards saying "Brits out" and the IRA would slaughter him.
The IRA should be treated with contempt by everyone who has respect for law and order and who wishes to see peace brought back to Ireland, because the IRA has cast an evil spell over Ireland, both North and South. The Irish Republic has taken strong measures against the Provisional IRA because it wants to rid itself of the IRA from its midst. Why should we not take equally strong measures? To the credit of the Irish Republic, it will not allow the IRA or its sympathisers to appear on radio or television, whereas we—because the BBC and independent television wish to be even-handed—allow the IRA to put forward its case for murder and mutilation. That is a disgraceful state of affairs.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: At the beginning of the earlier debate I asked the Home Secretary for some figures. I am glad that he has them.
How many requests have been refused by the right hon. Gentleman for the extension beyond the 48-hour period of the detention of persons who have been detained under part III in relation to suspected terrorist activity unconnected with Northern Ireland? I want to speak briefly about the use of the Act outside the political violence in Ireland. I want to draw the attention of the House to one case of a person in Swansea who on 19 July last year was arrested at 6.30 am under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. His home was not searched, and he was taken to Swansea central police station at 7 am where he was given breakfast. He was allowed to telephone his solicitor. He was given lunch at noon and fingerprinted and photographed at 2 pm. He was fed again at 6 o'clock, given breakfast at 8 am on Sunday, exercised at 1 pm and released at 2 pm without being charged.
The reasons for the detention of that person are still a mystery, both to the Welsh Campaign for Civil and Political Liberties that brought the case to my attention and to his legal advisers. He was deprived of his liberty for 31½ hours. There was no question of a significant or potential charge being put to him. His home was not searched and he was told by a police officer as early as 2 pm on the Saturday that if his answers to questions about his work and his home address "checked out", as the officer said, he would be released.
In my view and in the view of the civil liberties organisation that advised me, there must be reasonable suspicion that the arrested person has committed an offence under the Act or that he has been concerned in the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or a criminal offence for which a charge can be brought.
In this case it appears that the powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act were used to keep that person off the


streets for 31 hours. He was fingerprinted, and it would appear that the powers to obtain the fingerprints of a person under the Act should be dependent on there having been a valid arrest and a valid reason for detention. It seems to me and to the civil liberties organisation that discussed the case with me that the arrest was not valid and that the fingerprinting, not being related to a charge, must have been to identify that person and to add his details to the computer information files of the Special Branch.
All that happened in Swansea on 19 July last year. It appears to me that the only possible reason for the detention of that person was the presence of the Prime Minister in Swansea on that day and the demonstration that took place there. It is a serious matter when the police authorities in the United Kingdom use the provisions of the Act to detain a person merely to keep him off the streets because they suspect that, even though he was on holiday in the South-East of England in the previous week, he may have been involved in arranging a demonstration against the Prime Minister.
It is because the Act increasingly amounts to repressive legislation, because it is used outside the immediate context of the North of Ireland and because we may see the police practice connected with the Act and other pieces of repressive legislation being increasingly extended as the economic crisis deepens that I shall oppose its continuation.

Mr. Michael Mates: I have listened to both debates since 7 pm with interest and increasing astonishment as we have seen the wide divergence of views and opinions expressed on the Opposition Benches. A number of parties in the House need to sort out their thoughts on this complicated and important subject.
I probably have more cause than most other hon. Members to remember the introduction of the Act in 1974, because I made my maiden speech that evening and there is no more horrific occasion in the life of an hon. Member. I supported the Act at that time, have supported since and will continue to support it unhesitatingly tonight.
There have been some responsible speeches in the two debates. I pay a particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who, speaking for that part of the official Opposition over which he has control, was thoroughly responsible and reasoned. I did not agree with his request for an inquiry, but that is a matter on which we can differ without dishonour to either side.
The right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) also spoke reasonably until he came to a hypotheseis that was rather strange for a distinguished lawyer. He tried to turn the argument on its head by saying "Suppose that the Act had not been enacted in 1974. Could we come to the House now and enact it?" There is no answer to that, because it is a hypothetical question. However, one must ask "If we had not moved with the speed and resolution with which the Labour Government moved in 1974, with the full support of the House, how many more Birminghams, Guildfords, and Aldershots might have happened?" If the answer is even one, the House was entirely justified in its action. There are no facts on which to base reasoned observations, but if, when we look into our hearts, we concede that there is a chance that one more innocent life might be lost if we did away with the Act, that is a good enough reason for retaining it.
Other hon. Members have expressed their opposition, some of it reasoned, some of it not. I shall not comment on all their speeches because time is short. It is a pity that the Liberal Party has, for the first time, decided officially—if that is how things are decided in that party—to oppose the Act. I suppose that there will be consultations between the Liberals and the Social Democrats to see whether they can come to any sort of concordance.
However, it was disingenuous, to say the least, for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) to address the House in the tones that he used. Unless I misunderstood him, he asked the Home Secretary to concede an inquiry because otherwise he would have to vote against the continuation of the Act. That comes ill from the mouth of the hon. Gentleman, because he voted against renewal last year—without asking any questions and without making a speech or an intervention. He ought to have been a little more honest about his opposition, which is not recent, but which may have been part of persuading the Liberal Party to change its hitherto official view of acquiescence to the distasteful, but necessary, Act.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon)—I am sorry he is not present—went to the extreme. He opposed the Act. That is fair enough. To my question "What is different from last year?", the hon. Gentleman replied that things had got better. That response, from a generally responsible hon. Member, verges on the incredible.
Everyone is grateful that the level of violence continues to decrease both here and in Northern Ireland. That is not to say that the potential for violence is still not as great as it was in 1974. We must watch against it. There is no way in which it can be measured. Nor can one measure the effectiveness of the Act. There is no answer to the accusation of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that one cannot tell whether things are better because of the Act. There are, however, several indications from which one can draw conclusions. These indications, taken together, persuade me that we cannot do without the provisions that the forces of law and order in this country possess over and above the normal legal framework.
To say that things have gone quiet is to state a bald fact. One must remember, as my right hon. Friend reminded us, of the events at Uxbridge. One must remember the find in Southampton in 1976 of enormous quantities of explosives which had been lodged there agaist the day when the IRA wanted to activate its active service units, which undoubtedly exist in this country, and cause a major violent disruption. We were lucky to find all that. I wonder whether the police would have been as effective in not only finding those explosives but rounding up those responsible, which culminated in the Winchester bombing trial, without the Act. Frankly, I doubt it.
Only last year, there was a major find of ammunition and arms, explosives and bombs in North London when, again, people were rounded up. I wonder whether the police would have been nearly as effective or could have produced those results without the Act. There has been comment in the press—I do not know whether it is official—about how much the police needed the powers in the Act. The man Tuite, who, alas, has escaped, was, I understand, in police hands for two or three days before he was recognised for who he was, such was his skill in disguising himself, taking on aliases and so on.
These are not facts—they cannot be facts—but if one takes the totality of occasions when disaster has been averted by outstandingly good police work, to which I pay credit, I believe that we owe it to those forces on which we depend to ensure to the best of our ability that these atrocities are not repeated either in this country or in Northern Ireland. To take away one whit of the assistance that they feel they need to carry out their task would handicap them in a way that I hope all my hon. Friends would find disagreeable and distasteful.
No one wants this Act to remain in force for longer than is necessary. I reject the argument levelled at me by the hon. Member for York that I would like it to remain for ever. That is not true. The sooner that peace comes and the sooner we can be sure that people may live in safety under the normal law, then, and only then, can we do away with temporary provisions that are needed, over and above the normal law, to cope with an abnormal situation.
While people who shout for liberty and balance the requirement for law and security against their own libertarian wishes and those, they say, of the people they represent, they nevertheless always come down in favour of liberty. That is their right. Thank goodness they do not have the responsibility and have not had the responsibility for making a judgment between the restriction of liberty and the protection of society. If one innocent person loses his life because the libertarian lobby has had its way, that will be one person too many.
I believe that I speak for many when I say that I am perfectly happy that there should be certain restrictions, with safeguards, put upon my liberty so that those terrorists who live in our midst and are determined to destroy our society cannot succeed. If that means more checks and more security—even temporary detention for me—that I will accept. What I will not accept is that one more innocent person should die.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief because I know that the Home Secretary wishes to reply to the debate. I wish merely to raise the case of Patrick O'Hagan, and to remind the Home Secretary of it. I shall oppose the order because I do not consider that renewal is justified and I believe that, far from diminishing terrorism, continuance of the temporary provisions is more likely to encourage it.
Patrick O'Hagan was in prison serving a sentence in Belfast. The governor gave him home leave to adjust himself to going back home. The governor informed the police in Yorkshire that he was going. When he arrived at Leeds-Bradford airport, on his way to visit his family in Keighley, members of the Special Branch turned up, armed to the teeth, arrested him, and put him in Armley gaol. They kept him there a week and served an exclusion order on him. They arrested his brother and served an exclusion order on him. His brother had been allowed by a previous Home Secretary to come to this country after being in a detention centre in Northern Ireland.
The family was settled here. They had moved away from Northern Ireland to get away from the troubles, in which they were not involved. I emphasise that Patrick O'Hagan had never been involved in a terrorist outrage. He was an ordinary criminal—if that is ever ordinary—and he was serving an ordinary sentence, without any terrorist involvement.
Patrick O'Hagan did not have his home leave. He went straight back to prison, and the Home Secretary has refused to lift the exclusion order. The family is now back in Northern Ireland, closer to the troubles, because they refused to be split up. The family went nearly demented as a result of the arrests and exclusion orders. They are now closer to involvement with terrorism, from which they deliberately wanted to move away.
That is harsh, unjust and unfair. There is no justification for it. The man was in prison, he came straight to Leeds-Bradford airport and was arrested there, so he could not possibly be excluded under the terms of this legislation. On that basis—I know that similar considerations apply in many other cases—I shall oppose the renewal of the temporary provisions of the Act.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): Naturally, knowing that he had waited all evening to do so, I gave the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) an opportunity to state his case, although that has slightly cut down the time available to me. I do not accept much that the hon. Gentleman said about the case which he raised—I do not think that he would expect me to—but I shall, of course, look again at all the facts which he has brought out and consider them carefully.
My hon. Friends the Members for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) and for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) made a strong case for renewal of the temporary provisions of the Act, as I would wish to do. Both they and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) paid tribute to what the police do in this work and to their firm belief, which I think important, that the powers given to them under the Act are crucial to their task of preventing terrorism and protecting our country from it. My hon. Friends the Members for Petersfield and for Epsom and Ewell were entirely correct in what they said, and I entirely endorse it.
In the earlier debate I gave the example of the outrage at Uxbridge, which could have had disastrous effects. I mentioned also, as did the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), some of the trouble there has been at Hammersmith. I shall return to some of the hon. Member's other points, but I am glad that he very fairly mentioned that as well.
I think it right also to call attention to a report in the Irish Times of the trial in Dublin of a man called Peter Rogers and his conviction of the murder of a member of the Garda. Rogers killed a member of the Garda after his van had been stopped and explosives were found in it. The report states that the Garda believed that he was:
in the process of transporting the explosives to an active service unit in Britain who planned the blitz as part of the then continuing H block protest. Garda experts who examined the explosives and various other devices soon after the killing of Garda Quaid described them as some of the most sophisticated ever uncovered in these islands. Not only was there sufficient explosives for 15 major bombs but also highly advanced radio control devices and mercury tilt switches similar to that used in the killing of Airey Neave.
That is a fact of what is still happening, and it illustrates some of the risks to which our citizens are still subjected.
I agree with the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that as long as these outrages are threatened and people persist in pursuing them, so long do we have to take measures to protect our citizens. I believe that there is in that considerable justification for the renewal of the Act.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North made a reasoned and careful speech. I think that I must avoid, as I have scrupulously avoided for the last eight years since I left Northern Ireland, making any references to activities in Northern Ireland or giving any views about it, but I could not agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's solutions.
I found the hon. Gentleman's rather academic approach to the attitude of terrorists somewhat at variance with what I believe many of us over the years have found to be the motivation of these people. When the hon. Gentleman refers to the banishment of Sakharov as equivalent to exclusion, surely that is extremely unfair and, in the circumstances, extremely unreasonable. The Act enables me to exclude people only if I am satisfied that they have been involved in acts of terrorism. Terrorism involves the use of violence, and I therefore reject this comparison. All the more do I reject it when both I and my predecessors, in every way that we have carried through the Act, have scrupulously abided by its provisions as it relates to offences directed towards Northern Ireland.
Here I mention the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), and I apologise to him for not having answered his question in the previous debate. Let me deal first with the arrest of people who are not connected with Northern Ireland. The power of arrest and detention is not limited to Irish terrorists, because it may not always be obvious to the police at the time of arrest whether a terrorist is motivated by Irish or other causes. However, in a current circular, Home Office advice to the police is that it would be contrary to the intention of the Act for this power to be used to arrest someone concerned with terrorism known to be unconnected with Northern Ireland. That is the specific advice that the Home Office has given to the police. If the hon. Gentleman believes that in the case that he mentioned that intention was contravened in any way, perhaps he will contact me and I shall consider what he has said.
The hon. Gentleman asked about extensions of detention that had been refused in the period from 1974 to 28 February 1981. The answer is two in England and Wales, five in Scotland and two in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington tried to have his cake and eat it. On the one hand he was determined to combat terrorism, he was determined not to lower his guard, and he quite rightly paid a considerable tribute to the police, but on the other hand he was inclined to believe that we should continue with the Act. I think that there is in that an element of having one's cake and eating it. I respect the view of those who believe, as the Opposition officially do, that the Act should be renewed but that there should be a review of it. That is one point. To be sure that one wants to combat terrorism and yet be doubtful about renewing the Act is trying to have one's cake and eat it, and I do not think that that is a satisfactory position.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), of whose courage against terrorism no one in the House has any doubt—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—raised a number of points which I must tell him I do not think are right. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's feelings in the case about which he is disturbed and which he has discussed with me. I am prepared to consider, yet again, the position in that case. It involved someone who was in prison for a crime for which he had been tried and convicted. It had nothing to do with the Act.
It is fair to say, as did the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), that the Act does not apply only to people from Catholic areas or to the IRA. Exclusion orders have been applied to members of the UDA and the UVF. I do not take particular delight in that, but it has been evenhanded to all who have been thought to be connected with terrorist activities in Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have shown to the House that we have had recent evidence of the seriousness of the threat by people seeking to use violence to further their views in Northern Ireland. We have seen the threats and know that they still exist. We cannot lower our guard. We are talking about men who do not scruple to kill innocent people. Inasmuch as the Act reduces that threat, it is justified and, indeed, necessary.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion,Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No 3 (Exempted business):—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 44.

Division No. 109]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Clinton(Hackney C)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric


Beith.A.J.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Dempsey, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dormand, Jack


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Dubs, Alfred


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Canavan, Denníis
Eadie, Alex


Carmichael, Neil
Eastham, Ken


Cartwright, John
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
English, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M (B'stol S)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Concannon, Rt Hon J.D.
Evans, John(Newton)


Cowans, Harry
Field, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Fitt, Gerard


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Flannery, Martin






Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Palmer, Arthur


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Foulkes, George
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Race, Reg


Freud, Clement
Radice, Giles


George, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Golding, John
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Ted
Robertson, George


Grant, John (Islington C)
Rooker, J.W.


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Roper, John


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Haynes, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Heffer, Eric S.
Sandelson, Neville


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Sheerman, Barry


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Home Robertson, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Homewood, William
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hooley, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Horam, John
Snape, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Stallard, A. W.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Steel, Rt Hon David


John, Brynmor
Stoddart, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kerr, Russell
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lamond, James
Tilley, John


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Tinn, James


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


McCusker, H.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Watkins, David


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Welsh, Michael


McKelvey, William
White, Frank R.


Maclennan, Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)


Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woolmer, Kenneth


Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Molyneaux, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Newens, Stanley
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. George Morton and Mr. Hugh McCartney.


O'Neill, Martin



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bulmer, Esmond


Alison, Michael
Butler, Hon Adam


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bendall, Vivian
Cockeram, Eric


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Colvin, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cope, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Costain, Sir Albert


Biggs-Davison, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Blackburn, John
Critchley, Julian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Crouch, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dover, Denshore


Brown, Michael(Brig &amp; Sc'n,)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Browne, John(Winchester)
Dunlop, John


Buck, Antony
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)




Durant, Tony
Onslow, Cranley


Eggar, Tim
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Elliott, Sir William
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Emery, Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Eyre, Reginald
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Fell, Anthony
Pollock, Alexander


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Prior, Rt Hon, James


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Renton, Tim


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rhodes James, Robert


Goodhart, Philip
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Goodlad, Alastair
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Gow, Ian
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Gray, Hamish
Rossi, Hugh


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Scott, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Shaw, Mchael(Scarborough)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hannam, John
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Haselhurst, Alan
Shepherd, Richard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Shersby, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Silvester, Fred


Heddle, John
Sims, Roger


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Smith, Dudley


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Speed, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Speller, Tony


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Sproat, Iain


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Squire, Robin


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stainton, Keith


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kilfedder, James A.
Stanley. John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stevens, Martin


Lang, Ian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Latham, Michael
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stradling Thomas, J.


LeMarchant, Spencer
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lester Jim (Beeston)
Tebbit, Norman


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Loveridge, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Thompson, Donald


McCrindle, Robert
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Macfarlane, Neil
Thornton, Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


McQuarrie, Albert
Trotter, Neville


Madel, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Major, John
Viggers, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Waddington, David


Marten, Neil (Banburry)
Wakeham, John


Mates, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mather, Carol
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Waller, Gary


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ward, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


Mellor, David
Watson, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Wells, Bowen


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wheeler, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Moate, Roger
Wickenden, Keith


Moore, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Murphy, Christopher
Wilkinson, John


Myles, David
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Neale, Gerrard



Needham, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Nelson, Anthony
Lord James Douglas Hamilton and Mr. Selwyn Gummer.


Neubert, Michael



Newton, Tony

Division No. 110]
[11.40 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Alison, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Ancram, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
McCrindle, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
McCusker, H.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Biggs-Davison, John
McQuarrie, Albert


Blackburn, John
Major, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Marlow, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mates, Michael


Bright, Graham
Mather, Carol


Browne, John (Winchester)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Buck, Antony
Mayhew, Patrick


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Mellor, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Cockeram, Eric
Moate, Roger


Colvin, Michael
Molyneaux, James


Cope, John
Moore, John


Costain, Sir Albert
Murphy, Christopher


Cranborne, Viscount
Myles, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Neale, Gerrard


Dorrell, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Nelson, Anthony


Dover, Denshore
Neubert, Michael


Dunlop, John
Newton, Tony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Onslow, Cranley


Durant, Tony
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Elliott, Sir William
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Eyre, Reginald
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Pollock, Alexander


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Price, Sir David (Eastlaigh)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Goodhart, Philip
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Rossi, Hugh


Grylls, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hannam, John
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Hawksley, Warren
Silvester, Fred


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sims, Roger


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Dudley


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Speed, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Speller, Tony


Kilfedder, James A.
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


LeMarchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor






Stevens, Martin
Ward, John


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Watson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wheeler, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Thompson, Donald
Wickenden, Keith


Thornton, Malcolm
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waddington, David
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. John Wakeham.


Waldegrave, Hon William



Waller, Gary





NOES


Alton, David
McKelvey, William


Ashton, Joe
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Beith, A.J.
Maxton, John


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Mikardo, Ian


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
O'Halloran, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Penhaligon, David


Canavan, Dennis
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Race, Reg


Dixon, Donald
Richardson, Jo


Dobson, Frank
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dubs, Alfred
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Eastham, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Fitt, Gerard
Stallard, A.W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Foulkes, George
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Welsh, Michael


Home Robertson, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint



Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Martin Flannery.


Lyon, Alexander (York)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry (Redundancy Payments and Pensions)

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move,
That the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 11 March, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if at the same time we discuss the second motion:
That the draft Mineworkers' Pension Scheme (Limit on Contributions) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 11 March, be approved.

Mr. Moore: The first order was considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments yesterday, and no points were raised. It brings into effect, for workers redundant on or after the date of laying of the order, the improvements in the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme which the Government have decided should be made in the present circumstances of the coal industry. These should not, however, be regarded as any radical departure from the principles which have governed the scheme since it was first set up in 1968. It was set up then to reflect the particular circumstances of the coal industry,

where it is a fact of life—and fully accepted in the most recent tripartite discussions by everyone concerned—that from time to time pits have to close; and while every effort is made by the National Coal Board to transfer men from these pits to continuing pits, some men—particularly older men with a lifetime of service in the industry—are likely to be made redundant.
In 1968 the Government of the time accepted that they had a responsibility to ensure that these men were treated decently, and since then successive Governments have reaffirmed their acceptance of this responsibility by extending the scheme both in duration and in scope. The Coal Industry Act 1980 extended the duration of the scheme to cover men made redundant up to 31 March 1984 and also extended the scope of the scheme to include those made redundant through cokeworks closures. The amendment No. 3 order which I moved in December brought these extensions into effect. Earlier in the year, in the 1980 No. 2 order, we had increased the lump sum provisions for younger men and introduced them for men aged under 35 for the first time.
Now, under the authority of the 1980 Coal Industry Act, we are introducing considerable further improvements. The lump sums are increased again—by an amount equal to double the payment received under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, typically about £6,000, for men aged 50 to 54. Younger men will be getting extra payments on a fixed cash basis—£1,500 at age 40 to 49, £1,000 at ages 30 to 39 and a tapering scale for men under 30. These are all on top of the existing lump sum provisions. Workers aged 55 or over at redundancy will receive weekly benefit at about two-thirds of previous pay—with cost of living increases—for five years instead of three, or to normal retiring age if that is sooner. In addition, those aged 55 to 59 will receive for the first time under the scheme lump sum payments on a tapering scale linked to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act payments.
In addition, the order makes a few changes which are of an updating character. The earnings limit used in calculating the weekly benefit goes up from £120 to £130 per week from the beginning of the new fiscal year, 6 April, and some of the limits on other earnings and pensions which may be taken with scheme benefits are increased. The minimum benefit payable is also raised in line with the increase in mineworkers' basic pension. These changes will all apply from 25 March.
All this is, as I have said, a continuation of the review process which successive Governments have undertaken. The new terms will last for men made redundant up to 31 March 1984, when the present legislative authority expires.
The second draft order, upon which the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has requested amplification, relates to the change in the nature of the mineworkers' pension scheme in April 1975, when it became an earnings—related, self-financing scheme, covering men employed in the industry at that date and also future employees. Just prior to that, in the final report of the tripartite coal industry examination in 1974, it had been pointed out that the past contraction of the coal industry presented a financial problem for a viable pension scheme because of the exceptional ratio of pensions to contributing members—about one to one instead of one to five.
In particular, there was a considerable deficiency in the pension fund in respect of men who had retired before April 1975. There were some 240,000 of these and, in addition, about 180,000 deferred pensioners who had left the industry but who could claim their pensions when they reached the age of 65. Because it would have been unfair to place this burden of the past upon the industry, the then Government agreed to contribute towards the deficiency attributable to these men, and in the National Coal Board (Finance) Act 1976 Parliament authorised a contribution of up to £18 million a year for 20 years. The Act also included provisions for increasing this annual payment where the deficiency had increased because of the need to keep the pensions of these men in line with the rise of the cost of living.
In 1975, those pre-April 1975 pensioners were receiving a flat-rate pension of £3.60 per week. In successive years, these pensions were increased to keep in line with rises in the cost of living. The increases had the effect of increasing the deficiency in the pension fund related to pre-April 1975 pensioners, and the annual Government contribution has consequently been increased in successive steps from £18 million to £41.08 million in the current year. These increases have been approved by the House in a series of orders in 1977, 1978,1979 and 1980.
Last September, the basic pension was increased from £7·37 to £8·92 per week in line with the rise in the RPI. We are advised by the Government Actuary that the consequent increase in the deficiency was equivalent to an annual payment of £8·2 million for the remaining 15 years of the support arrangement.
The Government therefore now seek the agreement of the House for the annual contribution to be increased by that £8·2 million, making the new annual contribution £49·28 million. The first payment of the increased amount to the National Coal Board needs to be made before the end of the current financial year, and similar amounts may be paid in future up to and including 1994–95.
I must emphasise that the increase that we are discussing relates solely to men who were pensionsers before April 1975 or had already, at that date, qualified for a deferred pension. We are not concerned at this point with men who became or might become pensioners after that date.
That Act also requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement explaining the considerations which have led him to conclude that the order should be made. The House will have noted that such a statement was laid with the order. I shall amplify slightly some of the points in this statement in view of the Select Committee query, which we shall, of course, answer in writing before the next meeting.
With regard to the current position of the National Coal Board, although the audited accounts will not be available until the summer, we have obtained estimates from the board of the likely outcome of its operations in the present financial year. We have examined these estimates in the context of our continuous monitoring of the board's operations.
The estimates, which in the nature of things are subject to some uncertainty, show that after payment of interest and taking credit for the expected level of Government operating, social and deficit grants, other than the increase

here in question, the NCB will show a net loss of around £60 million in 1980–81. Payments of this grant in 1980–81 will reduce the loss to around £50 million.
As my right hon. Friend's statement points out, these are not circumstances in which the board could reasonably be asked to shoulder the burden of the extra £8·2 million. For later years, the position can be kept under review. The present order empowers, but does not compel, payment of the additional sum.
In the light of all these points, I seek the agreement of the House to the making of both these orders.

Mr. Alex Eadie: The House will note carefully what the Minister has said in his outline statement seeking approval of the orders. He stressed, for example, that the principles are the same, based on the discussions that we have had in the past.
It was right and proper that the hon. Gentleman should mention how these matters come under discussion and scrutiny at the tripartite meetings. It was also correct to recall to the House that these principles and this responsibility have been accepted since 1968. It was also as well to recall that previously we approved a somewhat similar order, providing for an extension whereby we should have a responsibility to the coke workers and include them in the scheme.
We note the hon. Gentleman's statement that the lump sums will be increased. The age range factor will decide exactly what are the additional amounts on top of the existing scheme.
We note the hon. Gentleman's comments with regard to the dates on which the orders are to become operative, namely, from 25 March 1981 until March 1984.
We also note that the contraction of the industry has posed problems in relation to the pension scheme and how it should be funded. The hon. Gentleman drew the attention of the House to the way in which this had been dealt with in the past on approval of the House of Commons.
The Opposition, of course, welcome orders which, as the hon. Gentleman explained, increase the financial limit of the pension scheme.
We note what the order says about the National Coal Board's finances. It is unlikely to break even on the revenue account next year without financial support—the point that the Minister made about the Select Committee' s query. It cannot be expected to take on the additional financial contribution of £8·2 million.
The Opposition also note what section 2 of the Act states, that the Secretary of State has the permissive right, if not the mandatory right, to deal with such matters. That has been the way of all Secretaries of State when they first had to deal with these aspects.
Of course we welcome the enhanced redundancy payments to miners. This is social justice to miners who find themselves on the employment scrap-heap after giving long service to the mining industry. Unfortunately, too many give silent testimony, in appearance and in health, to the hours they have toiled in the darkness of the bowels of the earth. I doubt whether any hon. Members would seriously challenge these enhanced payments.
At this late hour I want to reply briefly, in measured tones, for we can return at a later date to the negotiations that are the main reason for the orders appearing before the House tonight. Many of my hon. Friends take strong


exception to the way in which these enhanced redundancy payments have been described by some sections of the media. To add the miner's lump sum to his expected weekly pension and present it as a global sum has already given great offence in mining areas.
The Opposition do not regard redundancy payments as the only answer to the problems facing the industry, including the problem of pit closures. It is right and proper that miners who find themselves deprived of the right to practise their skill and expertise, acquired over the years, should be financially rewarded, particularly when, through no fault of their own, they face the prospect of unemployment for the rest of their working lives.
Miners are a proud body of men. They do not wish to be labelled as workers who, through accepting redundancy payments, have sold the jobs of their sons and their grandsons. They believe that the jobs in the industry are not theirs to take away for a financial inducement. The constructive answer to pit closures—indeed, the only answer, because mining is an extractive industry—is planned new replacement capacity carrying on with the investment, new pit sinkings, commitment to "Plan for Coal", and the bringing forward of "Plan 2000" for the whole industry.
I raise these issues because in too many areas recruitment to the mines has halted. Our school leaver sons are in the dole queues. That must stop forthwith. Recruitment to the mines should start immediately. Coal is the fuel not only of this century but of the next. Therefore, let us get on with it; let us say what we mean and mean what we say.
The Opposition welcome the orders and the way in which the Minister moved them. They give enhanced redundancy payments, which will be just reward for many miners. But I re-emphasise that they are no substitute for long-term forward investment in our great British coal mining industry.

Mr. Jack Dormand: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) in welcoming these proposals. Without going into the details of the order, may I say that the amount appears to be about right, having regard to the special and unique circumstances of the coal mining industry.
I deplore the kind of publicity which has been given to the enhanced payments. I am delighted that the Minister is nodding his agreement about that. I am delighted that my hon. Friend commented on it, too. I come from the North-East. I find it very sad that the news media there has been publicising the fact that miners will be getting £35,000 from this kind of measure.
A number of things can be said about that. First, I suggest that it is not true. Perhaps the Minister will indicate that that is so. It is probably nearer the truth to say that the figure is about £20,000, or perhaps £23,000.

Mr. George Grant: Maximum.

Mr. Dormand: Maximum, as my hon. Friend tells me. He is very experienced in these matters.
In addition, it has not been said in the news media that that is not a direct lump sum handout, and that the lump sum is much smaller than that and the rest is spread out, as with all other redundancy payments. No mention is

made of the much lower payments which constitute the bulk of the redundancy payments. It is important that the Government should go out of their way to publicise the true position.
I make no apology for reiterating what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian has said—it is perhaps the most important part of this short debate—namely, that the real issue is that of the retention of jobs. As it happens, the jobs are usually in an area in which there is a dire shortage of employment in any case, such as the North-East, and the Northern region as a whole. We are talking about jobs for not merely the miners concerned but sons and grandsons. Perhaps I may declare an interest. My father and brother were miners. I have some knowledge of the industry.
In spite of all the disadvantages of working in the mining industry, not least at the coalface, many miners are proud of their calling and of their expertise and experience. That is something that we should not throw away lightly. The Minister has displayed great interest in the industry. He must know that, unless we can maintain that kind of spirit, there will be difficulties.
The National Union of Mineworkers and the mining fraternity as a whole are deeply suspicious of all Tory Governments. They have a particular reason to be suspicious of the present Government. A number of us said that when the Coal Industry Bill became an Act there would be difficulties and trouble. Unfortunately, that was manifested in the recent confrontation with the miners. We were delighted with the outcome. The Government were very wise to realise what a fundamental mistake they had made in the Act in requiring the industry to break even by 1982–83. On many occasions during the passage of that Act we said that that was a financial impossibility. If the proposed measures are used as an instrument for the reduction of jobs, this is a matter which will need further debate and perhaps further action.
We are talking about how the industry can continue to provide a certain number of jobs and to increase that number. I am not thinking solely in terms of the new coalfields. However, both the new coalfields and investment will make a big contribution.
To be constructive, I shall make two suggestions. First, the Government can and should provide incentives for the greater use of coal in industry. In the recent Budget Statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government would make £50 million available over a two-year period. That is only a small step, although I accept that it is in the right direction. If two or three companies, or at the most half a dozen, of the larger companies convert to coal—ICI springs to mind—the £50 million will be quickly used up. We are talking about a trifling sum. The coal industry is strong and viable and is being increasingly used. I hope that the Department will bring pressure to bear. I think that the Department of Industry will be responsible for administration, but the Opposition and the Department of Energy should make the strongest representations. Although we welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, it will result in insufficient money to meet the needs.
I think that the Minister knows that I have a particular interest in coal liquefaction. On many occasions we have disagreed on this subject. The Government could do a great deal more. There are two pilot plants. My information is that the Government are not even contributing towards the construction costs of those two


plants, despite the fact that the ECSC and BP are making contributions. In those circumstances, I should have thought that the Government would make a substantial contribution. The Reagan Administration are also committed to the reduction of public expenditure and are cutting research expenditure. Therefore, the field will be wide open for the United Kingdom to reap enormous benefits from the overseas sale of expertise, know-how and technology. In addition, I hope that in the not-too-distant-future much more coal will be used for that purpose.
I conclude by repeating my welcome to the increased payments. They are justified by the nature of the work. In addition no one more than the miner deserves recognition for what he has contributed to the country's industry, economy and well-being.

Mr. John Moore: I shall respond briefly to the very constructive comments that have been made about the orders.
I completely share the views expressed by the hon. Members for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and for Easington (Mr. Dormand) about the ways in which the media first greeted the laying of the order. As I knew the way in which so many of these important issues are handled, I took particular care to ensure that the facts relating to the five-year coverage were made quite clear in the publicity. That coverage was capitalised on by the media. Of course, different conclusions were drawn from that publicity by those who sought to make different points. If the House endorses the orders, I shall seek to make the facts—which have legitimately been brought out tonight—clear. It is important that those who deserve the enhanced redundancy payments should get them without any of the nonsense that some of us are forced to read about in the media.
I do not want to go into detail about a particular case. We shall deal with the matter in detail in publicity. Every case varies, depending on the man's service to the industry.
A detailed point was raised concerning incentives for the greater use of coal. I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Easington said. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget a substitution scheme—coal for oil—in the boiler area, which will be under the organisation of the Department of Industry. The hon. Member for Midlothian rightly raised this matter yesterday in the Standing Committee on the Energy Conservation Bill, and I was happily able to respond positively on some of the details from the point of view of my Department.
This is not the appropriate time at which to discuss the question in detail. We referred to it as pump priming, and we hope to see that pump priming increase the

consumption of coal by the industry very soon by about 2 million tonnes per annum. To all of us involved with coal, that is a very important figure.

Mr. lain Mills: My hon. Friend will, of course, realise that this is most welcome to most of those involved in the design and the engineering of coal fluidised bed boiler systems in this country.

Mr. Moore: I should like without further ado to draw the attention of my hon. Friend and of all other hon. Members present to the fact that in the same Committee yesterday we also discussed fluidised beds. The comments made from each side of the Committee were important in relation to the scheme.
I accept the point that the hon. Member for Easington has made. We must look at all these areas. The ECSC has also proposed a scheme to provide reduced interest loans to encourage boiler conversion. The Department of Industry is holding discussions with the ECSC about the details of the proposals, including the question of Government providing exchange risk cover. There is obviously no conflict between that and the scheme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This is not an entirely appropriate moment at which to go into the subject of liquefaction, other than to say that there was another very senior level meeting this afternoon, which included the chairman of the National Coal Board, the chief scientist of my Department, the chief scientist of the NCB, and myself. It was adjourned because we are still in the midst of discussions. The hon. Member for Easington did not bring out quite the right facts, therefore I shall be happy to correspond with him in more detail about it.
The other main stand that came across, rightly, from the hon. Members for Midlothian and Easington was that redundancies are just one aspect—a sad one—of an extractive industry. The other side is that of the future of the industry, the investment in its long-term future, and the commitment that the Government are continually seeking to make. That investment in the future is the key that must be in the forefront of our minds when we concern ourselves with redundancies. It is on that note that I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payment Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 11 March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Mineworkers' Pension Scheme (Limit on Contributions) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 11 March, be approved.—[Mr. John Moore.]

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES BILL

Ordered,
That Mr. James Wellbeloved be discharged from the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and that Mr. Arthur Davidson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Orders of the Day — Comprehensive Education (Bolton)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. David Young: This debate is primarily about parents, teachers and children. It is about the ending of the uncertainty of parents, the future of the children in Bolton and the restoring of the morale of the excellent teaching staff that we have in Bolton. It is also, to quote an editorial in the Bolton Evening News—which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered to be a Left-wing journal—about the need to end the present educational hotch-potch.
While the debate refers to comprehensive reorganisation, let us be quite clear that, whatever the Minister decides, the reorganisation of schools in Bolton will have to take place. If there is a belated or adverse decision, the reorganisation will have to be more rather than less.
As the Minister is aware, the Department received the scheme from Bolton on 3 October. Discussions had been taking place between his officials and Bolton council officials since August. I emphasise that already in the borough we have comprehensive organisation in both Turton and Westhoughton. The denominational schools are organised comprehensively. Thus the authority's plan seeks to rationalise the contradictory and conflicting educational systems in the borough. Not only is the proposal endorsed by the duly elected council, but it has carried with it the endorsement of the teachers' unions, the chamber of trade and commerce and the Bolton council for community relations.
The overwhelming argument for the scheme is educational. It is basically designed to make the most effective use of manpower, capital and financial resources at a time when the rolls in schools are falling. That criterion is being argued by the Department. The plan is also in line with current educational thinking as expressed by the Macfarlane report. I realise that the Department will be considering in detail all schemes. While I do not urge the Minister to give less than full consideration or to reach a hasty decision to the disadvantage of Bolton, I put it to him, as a teacher of long-standing experience and a headmaster, that he must be well aware of the problems that face the authority in the schools if a decision is much further delayed, given the fact that the schools go on holiday on 25 June and Easter intervenes.
That point concerns us deeply, because difficulties will arise, whatever the decision, if there is much more delay in the making thereof. For example, the appointment of staff and recruitment from outside have been held back pending the Minister's decision. We have an excellent teaching force in Bolton, but on the morale of that teaching force must depend the quality of education, no matter what system is in force. It would be terrible if that excellent morale were jeopardised by a further delay in the decision.
I should be less than honest with the Minister if I did not say that I have cause for concern. For example, on 29 January the authority wrote to the Department asking for a meeting between Baroness Young, as the relevant Minister, and officials and councillors from Bolton. No reply had been received from the Department saying when that meeting might take place, and on 23 February I tabled a priority written question. Only on 25 February did the Department arrange a delegation at short notice for the

following Monday. I was even more concerned—for the Minister had the courtesy to write to me to say that he could not reply at once—when, by the next Thursday, I had still not received the answer to the question. It was only after a number of telephone calls to the Department and an indication that I would table another question that I received the answer by hand.
Given the timetable that I have outlined and the fact that on 24 February I tabled a question to the Minister for answer on 10 March asking when he intended to make his decision, I do not think that the reply I received saying that he would reply as soon as possible was good enough. I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Department is going slow on this issue. Will he give an undertaking, in the light of the factors that I have underlined, that the proposals will receive priority from the Department?
I should like to emphasise one or two relevant points. The proposed scheme will provide parental choice covering the whole of Bolton. The proposed rationalisation is backed by educational opinion on the ground that it is the most effective way to deal with falling rolls. It is also cost effective. The proposals are considerably less demanding of capital investment than the schemes submitted in 1977 and 1979, with essential capital works requirements of about £700,000. By taking surplus buildings out of use and reducing transport costs by changes in the admission arrangements, future revenue savings, based on present costs, of up to £500,000 per annum have been identified.
Over the period of full implementation, the proposed plan to take out of use 14 per cent. of the current place provision by the closure of four existing schools will mean that when the rolls fall buildings that cannot be fully utilised can be removed. The children's position will be looked after in the interim by gearing those schools to others by amalgamation, and the schools to which they are geared will have viability.
On post-16 provision, the authority's scheme pre-dates the Macfarlane report, but, in reviewing 16–19 provision, the arrangements that the scheme submitted by the council presupposes are entirely consistent with the findings and conclusion of the report.
If there is much more delay in the Department's communicating its decision, we shall be faced with a situation in which children transferring from primary to secondary school will have additional anxiety and will feel that their futures are jeopardised. Not only that, but the proper planning and organisation of secondary schools for 1981–82 will be in jeopardy. Furthermore, unless we get a decision within weeks rather than months, contingency action to safeguard the interests of 11-year-olds will, of necessity, have to be based on belated and unscheduled selection procedures. That could create a repetition of the situation that existed last year, when anxiety built up to the extent that references of many cases were made to the Ombudsman. While the Ombudsman upheld the authority, great concern remains in Bolton.
I am pleading that if the Minister will not give us a decision tonight—being an optimist, I hope that he will, but I fear tht he will not—he will convey to the Department the urgency expressed by teachers and pupils and by parents, of all political parties. The concern in Bolton is that education is becoming a political football and it is time that the matter was resolved. It is felt across the board that the submitted plan is the one to resolve the matter. In the


interests of Bolton's parents, children and teachers, we ask the Minister to make up his mind quickly and reach the right decision.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) that there should be an early decision on education in Bolton. The Minister, my hon. Friends and I have discussed this matter on many occasions. I hope that this evening will be the last occasion on which there is speculation about what is to happen in terms of comprehensive education in Bolton. The subject has been discussed and examined over many years. The Department should now be in a position to come to an early decision in favour of Bolton's schools going comprehensive in September this year.
I should like to emphasise two of the points made by my hon. Friend. The first is the necessity of an early decision. My hon. friend has asked for a decision in weeks rather than months. I hope for a decision in days rather than weeks. If there is no decision within the next week or two, teachers, parents and children will not know whether there is to be the farce of another 11-plus with children leaving primary school, as in 1979, not knowing to which secondary school they are allocated. We must have a decision as soon as possible whether or not the decision is in favour of going comprehensive.
I also stress to the Minister the need to end argument in Bolton and the need to allow us to implement the scheme from this year. The scheme has been worked out by teachers, parents, governors and members of the education committee, of both political parties. It is the scheme that over the years has had the greatest measure of agreement of all the people in the town.
The message that I should like to give the Minister is that people in Bolton are fed up with all the prevarication and discussion about what should happen in secondary education. They feel that they have a scheme that is sound educationally and fits the Minister's ideas about what should be done locally on falling rolls and in terms of improving provision for 16 to 19-year-olds. It is not an expensive scheme. It is a practical scheme. It would probe the educational opportunity of all the children in the town.
I hope that the Minister tonight will say that he recognises the need for an early decision and that he recognises the merit of the scheme. If he is not to give a decision tonight, I hope that he will say when he will give a decision. It is necessary to end the uncertainty in Bolton and to allow children's needs to be put above everything else. If children's needs are to be put first, we must have a decision in favour of Bolton going comprehensive this year. I hope that the Minister will recognise the validity of these points.

Mr. John Roper: I support the representations that have been put forward by hon. Members representing the metropolitan district of Bolton. I should like to draw attention to Little Lever, whose problem is one not of falling rolls but of a rapidly increasing school population. There is the problem of the need for urgent decisions so that building can be undertaken. I hope that the Minister, for this reason as well as those already mentioned, will give an early decision, even if he does not give it this evening.

Mr. Roger Stott: My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) and Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) have deployed the case admirably. I wish only to add a comment about how the situation in the metropolitan borough of Bolton affects the constituents of Westhoughton. My constituency falls within the metropolitan borough of Bolton, but it is in a somewhat different position. Westhoughton has a comprehensive system. It is a legacy from the days of the Lancashire county council. As the Minister will understand from early days in Baxenden, we have a fairly progressive system in Westhoughton. We have a fully integrated comprehensive system.
The problem arises because at least half my constituency falls within the metropolitan borough of Bolton. It is administered by the Bolton council, and the Bolton council has submitted to the Minister's Department a scheme to go comprehensive.
The problem in my constituency is that two schools, Blackrod-Rivington high school and Westhoughton high school, which are and which are to remain comprehensive, are at this moment oversubscribed, because there is no decision on what is to happen in the borough of Bolton.
I hope that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friends and that at some stage he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will make a decision about what Bolton wants to do. But in the meantime there are those of us, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) and I, whose schools are to some extent comprehensive, who have a problem in that certain people in Bolton wish to send their children to the schools in our constituencies. I should not object to that, since the schools are very good, but it does not make for good education.
The problem will remain as long as this question remains unresolved. I therefore add my voice to those raised tonight in saying to the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend "For goodness sake, at some time, somehow, make a decision to get this awful situation sorted out". My hon. Friends and I want the matter settled for the sake of the children and their parents whose interests we seek to represent in the House. At present, because of the indecision, the problems are fairly critical. We need a decision from the Minister on the question of comprehensive education in Bolton, and we need it fairly soon.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I know the Balton area—indeed, I have written about it——

Mr. Donald Thompson: We all know it.

Dr. Boyson: Apparently, even people from Yorkshire know it, which shows much in favour or the area about which hon. Members have spoken tonight. In fact, I was once offered an appointment in Bolton, but at that time, for some reason, Lancashire was keen to keep me and sent me to a headship elsewhere in the Rossendale valley. I also wrote about the poor law and the cotton industry there. I cannot give hon. Members copies of what I wrote, because it is all out of print now.
I am aware also of the point about the date of going down in the summer, which is almost unique in England,


though I know that there are different dates in Scotland. Ramsbottom, where I first taught, had the same dates. They began really on the first of the old Lancashire wakes week.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) and to other hon. Members who have spoken for giving me an opportunity to say a few words about these proposals by the Bolton education authority. However, I must say at the outset that I can say nothing about the merits or demerits of the scheme of reorganisation itself, or about the individual schools involved, since that could be seen to prejudice my right hon. and learned Friend's decision. Neither can I comment on the points about the scheme which the hon. Member for Bolton, East and other hon. Members have put, but I can assure the House that all that has been said will be conveyed to my right hon. and learned Friend, and also to my noble Friend the Minister of State, who has particular responsibility on the schools side. I include in that assurance the information presented in the debate and also the question of the urgency of the need to get the matter sorted out. I include also the issue of comprehensive education, about which hon. Members on the Opposition Benches feel strongly, and the question of falling rolls, which is bound up in the reorganisation.
I must first express concern about any suggestion that the decision on the proposals is being delayed deliberately by my Department. Hon. Members will be aware of the procedures to be followed for the publication of proposals by local education authorities under section 12 of the Education Act 1980. Bolton published its scheme on 3 October last year, and there followed the statutory two-month period during which objections to the proposals were submitted to the education authority. The authority then had until 3 January this year to submit the objections received to my right hon. and learned Friend, together with its observations upon them. This it did immediately before the Christmas period.
I have set out the timetable to demonstrate that there was very little that could be done by my Department until the proposals came to us early that year. Since this time, our consideration of the scheme has proceeded in the light of information supplied by the authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate and the comments made by both objectors to and supporters of the scheme. I may say in passing—and the hon. Members will know this—that more than 1,500 signatories have expressed their opposition to the proposals and more than 1,000 have given their support. Justice must be seen to be done to their views, on whichever side those signatures come.
I have already supplied the hon. Member with information—for which he rightly pressed me—on the length of time that it has taken to reach a decision on schemes for comprehensive education submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend since he took office. The hon. Gentleman will know, therefore, that on average—I have all the figures with me this evening—there has been a period of about seven and a half months between publication of such proposals and the announcement of a decision. It is now about five and a half months since Bolton published its proposals, and it would be virtually unprecedented for such major and complex proposals to be decided more quickly.
We are, however, aware—and it has been stressed this evening by hon. Members—of the need for an early decision, and we are equally concerned to bring an end to the feeling of uncertainty that is inevitably being experienced by staff, pupils and parents in the area. This point and the case for implementation of the proposals in September this year were put to my noble Friend the Minister of State when she met representatives of the Bolton education committee on Monday 2 March. We intend to give the proposals full and careful consideration, and a decision will be taken as quickly as is consistent with that.
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said—just as I have to what has been said by his hon. Friends—in support of the proposals, and I assure him that his views and those of his hon. Friends will be taken fully into account. I appreciate that there has been a state of acute uncertainty during the past three years over the future of secondary education in Bolton. I do not think that it is any exaggeration to say that. I recognise that such uncertainty can tend to demoralise all partners in the education service in the area, which would also have a harmful effect on the schools themselves. That has been stressed this evening. I also recognise that some change will be necessary in the area to reduce the harmful effects of falling rolls and to eliminate uneconomical surplus school places, and that the scheme for reorganisation along comprehensive lines has been made in that context. On our figures—some people may put it even higher—there has been an 18 per cent. drop in the number of pupils coming through. Some have put the figure as high as 20 per cent., but ours is still a significant figure.
Though, as I have said, I cannot comment on these current proposals, I shall take the opportunity to repeat the Government's attitude towards all proposals to reorganise schools along comprehensive lines. As we have always maintained, we firmly believe that it is for local education authorities, in consultation with local people, to decide what pattern of school provision they believe is best suited to the needs of their areas. Furthermore, the Government have always said that we are not opposed in principle to comprehensive schools, and our record since taking office two years ago shows that.
Decisions on 14 proposals for the reorganisation of individual schools or whole districts have been taken since we took office, and of these 11 have been approved—a clear indication, I suggest, that we are not being dogmatic in our approach to the requests of local authorities to go comprehensive. We all know that there were and are good grammar schools, just as there are good and bad comprehensive schools. Unlike Labour Members—I just say this gently—our concern is not with labels that may be attached to schools but with the quality of the schools themselves.
The discussion this evening has been very sensible, and one could say non-party, and I do not want to bring in a party feeling. What may be appropriate in one area and in one set of circumstances may not be appropriate in another. While it is for local education authorities to decide what proposals to make to my right hon. and learned Friend, it is up to him, and it is his responsibility, to weigh all the arguments that are put to him and to judge whether, in his opinion, the proposals are in the best educational interests of the children concerned.
We also accept that one of the most difficult problems facing all local education authorities is how to make the


best educational provision in the light of falling rolls. Bolton has recognised that it will have to do that and it has decided to try to reduce its provision. It proposes to achieve this by structuring its secondary provision on a comprehensive basis. As I said before, this proposal was for Bolton to make.

Mr. David Young: When we were discussing the length of time that authorities had to wait to have their proposals approved, the Minister said that 5½ months was unprecedented. Is he saying that he expects that the time is nearer 7½ months than 5½ months?

Dr. Boyson: That is a fair point. I was trying to put the matter into perspective. I did not intend to give the impression that 7½ months would be involved. The average is 7½ months. The situation in Bolton, historically, is difficult. Large schemes might affect Farnworth and Turton. We are not trying to increase the average.
In considering all proposals made by local education authorities under section 12 of the 1980 Act, my right hon. and learned Friend takes account of all the relevant factors, including the educational interests of the children involved, any implications for public expenditure and the weight and nature of any objections. I can assure hon. Members that this will be so in the case of the Bolton proposals. Such a detailed analysis inevitably takes time, but decisions on proposals involving such a large number of children must be seen to be based on the fullest information available and carefully made. My right hon. and learned Friend will reach his decision as soon as possible, and we will write to hon. Members to let them know the outcome. I shall convey to my noble Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the views expressed tonight, particularly those on the need for urgency.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to One o'clock.